Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tweet[IWS] DAILY POSTING - NO MESSAGES until 4 January 2010
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
________________________________________________________________________
NO MESSAGES will be sent until 4 January 2010.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] BLS: EMPLOYER-SPONSORED MEDICAL PLANS--COMPARISON OF TAKE-UP RATES: STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT & PRIVATE INDUSTRY [23 December 2009]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Compensation and Working Conditions Online
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/
Comparison of Take-up Rates in Employer-Sponsored Medical Care Plans: State and Local Government and Private Industry (12/23/2009)
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20091222ar01p1.htm
Data from the 2009 National Compensation Survey (NCS) reveal that take-up rates for employer-provided medical care plans differ between private industry workers and State and local government workers. Take-up rates also vary among workers in their respective private and State and local government sectors, by worker and establishment characteristics. This article discusses the concept of a take-up rate and presents take-up rate comparisons among workers in two major sectors of the economy, utilizing the March 2009 NCS estimates on take-up rates for employer-provided medical plans.
NOTE: Take-up rate refers to the percent of workers with access to a plan who actually “take up,” or participate, in a plan.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] HEALTH REFORM BILLS SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON [24 December 2009]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Kaiser Family Foundation
Health Reform Side-by-Side Now Reflects Senate Bill As Passed [24 December 2009]
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
Interactive Calculator
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
The Foundation has updated its interactive side-by-side health reform comparison tool to reflect the Senate bill as passed by the full Senate on Dec. 24. A separate interactive calculator helps to illustrate what assistance the uninsured would get with premiums under the House and Senate reform plans.
This interactive side-by-side compares the leading comprehensive reform proposals across a number of key characteristics and plan components. Included in this side-by-side are proposals for moving toward universal coverage that have been put forward by the President and Members of Congress. In an effort to capture the most important proposals, we have included those that have been formally introduced as legislation as well as those that have been offered as draft proposals or as policy options. It will be regularly updated to reflect changes in the proposals and to incorporate major new proposals as they are announced. This side-by-side offers a summary of the major components of these proposals.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] NCHS: DEATH: LEADING CAUSES for 2005 [23 December 2009]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
National Vital Statistics Reports
Volume 58, Number 8 December 23, 2009
Deaths: Leading Causes for 2005 [23 December 2009]
by Melonie Heron, Ph.D., and Betzaida Tejada-Vera, B.S., Division of VitalStatistics
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_08.pdf
[full-text, 98 pages]
Abstract
Objectives—This report presents final 2005 data on the 10 leading causes of death in the United States by age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. Leading causes of infant, neonatal, and postneonatal death are also presented. This report supplements the annual report of final mortality statistics.
Methods—Data in this report are based on information from all death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2005. Causes of death classified by the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD–10) are ranked according to the number of deaths assigned to rankable causes. Cause-of-death statistics are based on the underlying cause of death.
Result—In 2005, the 10 leading causes of death were, in rank order: Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases;
Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Alzheimer’s disease; Influenza and pneumonia; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia. They accounted for about 77 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. Differences in the rankings are evident by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Leading causes of infant death for 2005 were, in rank order: Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities; Disorders related to short gestation and low birthweight, not elsewhere classified; Sudden infant death syndrome; Newborn affected by maternal complications of pregnancy; Newborn affected by complications of placenta, cord and membranes; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Respiratory distress of newborn; Bacterial sepsis of newborn; Neonatal hemorrhage; and Necrotizing enterocolitis of newborn. Important variations in the leading causes of infant death are noted for the neonatal and postneonatal periods.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] NCHS: ELECTRONIC MEDICAL/HEALTH RECORDS USE BY PHYSICIANS 2008 & PRELIMINARY 2009 [23 December 2009]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Nationa Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
NCHS Health E-Stat
Electronic Medical Record/Electronic Health Record Use by Office-based Physicians: United States, 2008 and Preliminary 2009 [23 December 2009]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/emr_ehr/emr_ehr.htm
or
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/emr_ehr/emr_ehr.pdf
by Chun-Ju Hsiao, Ph.D.; Paul C. Beatty, Ph.D.; Esther S. Hing, M.P.H.; David A. Woodwell, B.A.; Elizabeth A. Rechtsteiner, M.S.; and Jane E. Sisk, Ph.D., Division of Health Care Statistics
Policymakers’ interest in the progress of health information technology adoption by health care providers has increased since 2004 when the federal government set the goal for most Americans to have electronic health records by 2014 (1). The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act may accelerate the pace of electronic medical record/electronic health record (EMR/EHR) adoption by providers, because it includes funding to promote adoption and use of electronic systems (2).
The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is an annual nationally representative survey of patient visits to office-based physicians that collects information on use of EMR/EHR. In 2008 and 2009, a supplementary mail survey on EMR/EHR use was conducted in addition to the core in-person NAMCS.
According to combined data from the 2008 surveys (mail and in-person surveys), 41.5 percent of physicians reported using all or partial EMR/EHR systems (not including systems solely for billing) in their office-based practices. This estimate was obtained from the question, “Does this practice use electronic medical records or electronic health records (not including billing records)?” (Yes, all electronic; Yes, part paper and part electronic; No; and Don’t know). The comparable figure for the 2007 NAMCS was 34 percent (3).
Besides reporting on all or partial EMR/EHR systems, physicians reported the computerized functionalities in their practices. Systems defined as basic include the following functionalities: patient demographic information, patient problem lists, clinical notes, orders for prescriptions, and viewing laboratory and imaging results (4,5). Systems defined as fully functional include all functionalities of basic systems plus the following: medical history and follow-up, orders for tests, prescription and test orders sent electronically, warnings of drug interactions or contraindications, highlighting of out-of-range test levels, and reminders for guideline-based interventions (4,5). In 2008, about 16.7 percent of physicians reported having systems that met the criteria of a basic system, and about 4.4 percent reported that of a fully functional system. Comparable figures for basic and fully functional systems in the 2007 NAMCS were 11.8 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively (3).
According to preliminary estimates from the 2009 mail survey, 43.9 percent of the physicians reported using all or partial EMR/EHR systems (not including systems solely for billing) in their office-based practices. About 20.5 percent reported having systems that met the criteria of a basic system, and 6.3 percent reported that of a fully functional system. The Figure shows EMR/EHR use among office-based physicians from 2001 through the preliminary 2009 estimates. Because NAMCS did not collect data on some features of computerized systems prior to 2006, the trends for basic and fully functional systems start in 2006.
These data indicate that physicians have been increasingly adopting EMR/EHR systems. From 2007 to 2008, physicians’ use of any EMR system increased by 18.7 percent. Within the same period, the percentage of physicians reporting having systems that met the criteria of a basic system increased by 41.5 percent. The 2009 preliminary estimates did not change significantly from 2008.
AND MUCH MORE...including FIGURE at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/emr_ehr/emr_ehr.htm#figures
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] Watson Wyatt: DEFINED BENEFIT vs 401(K) INVESTMENT RETURNS: THE 2006-2008 UPDATE [December 2009]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Watson wyatt
INSIDER
Defined Benefit vs. 401(k) Investment Returns: The 2006-2008 Update [December 2009]
http://www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider/showarticle.asp?ArticleID=22909
Watson Wyatt has been comparing investment rates of return in defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans for more than 10 years,1 and DB plans have been the long-term victor. This analysis updates our prior studies with investment returns for 20062 and 2007 for a large set of plans, as well as a snapshot of year-end returns for 2008 based on a small set of plan sponsors.
In our last analysis, we found that between 1995 and 2006, DB plans outperformed DC plans by an average of 1 percentage point per year. Earlier studies also found that, over time, DB plans attained higher returns than 401(k) plans. In this year’s analysis, the results remain in line with past analyses; DB plans outperform DC plans by roughly an average of 1 percentage point a year.
Our current analysis of year-end 2008 also shows — albeit drawn from a reduced sample — that despite generally poor returns for both plan types during the financial crisis, median returns for DB plans remained around 1 percentage point higher than those for DC plans — and some DB plans even reported positive returns.
Like our earlier studies, this analysis is based on Form 5500 financial and pension disclosure data through 2007 released by the Department of Labor (DOL). Results for 2008 are based on a Watson Wyatt survey of plan sponsors about their Form 5500 information. We also use the same formula as earlier studies to calculate the average rate of return:
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] Census: THE 2009 HOLIDAY SEASON
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
________________________________________________________________________
Facts for Features from the Census Bureau
CB09-FF.23
Oct. 29, 2009
The 2009 Holiday Season
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/014405.html
or
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/pdf/cb09ff-23_holidayseason.pdf
[full-text, 5 pages]
The holiday season is a time for gathering and celebrating with friends and family, gift-giving, reflection and thanks. To commemorate this time of year, the U.S. Census Bureau presents the following holiday-related facts and figures from its data collection.
It’s in the Mail
16.6 billion
Number of cards, letters and packages the U.S. Postal Service will deliver between Dec. 1 and Christmas this year. The busiest mailing day is set for Dec. 14, and Dec. 16 will be the busiest delivery day. Source: U.S. Postal Service http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/welcome.htm
Rush to the Stores
$28.2 billion
Retail sales by the nation’s department stores (including leased departments) in December 2008. This represented a 40 percent jump from the previous month (when retail sales, many holiday-related, registered $20.2 billion). No other month-to-month increase in department store sales last year was as large.
Other U.S. retailers with sizable jumps in sales between November and December 2008 were book stores (95 percent); clothing stores (32 percent); jewelry stores (125 percent); radio, TV and other electronics stores (38 percent); and sporting goods stores (62 percent).
Source: Service Sector Statistics <http://www.census.gov/retail>
14 percent
The proportion of total 2008 sales for department stores (including leased departments) in December. For jewelry stores, the percentage was 18 percent.
Source: Service Sector Statistics <http://www.census.gov/retail>
23 percent
The growth in inventories by our nation’s department stores (excluding leased departments) from Aug. 31 to Nov. 30, 2008. Thanks to the holiday crowds, inventories plummeted by 25 percent in December.
Source: Service Sector Statistics <http://www.census.gov/retail>
Note: Leased departments are separately owned businesses operated as departments or concessions of other service establishments or of retail businesses, such as a separately owned shoeshine parlor in a barber shop, or a beauty shop in a department store. Also, retail sales estimates have not been adjusted to account for seasonal or pricing variations.
$24 billion
Value of retail sales by electronic shopping and mail-order houses in December 2008 — the highest total for any month last year.
Source: Service Sector Statistics <http://www.census.gov/retail>
16,670
The number of electronic shopping and mail-order houses in business in 2007. These businesses, which employed 268,328 workers, are a popular source of holiday gifts. Their 2007 sales: $199 billion, of which 44.6 percent were attributable to e-commerce. California led the nation in the number of these establishments and their employees, with 2,493 and 32,971, respectively.
Source: County Business Patterns <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/014105.html> and
Annual Trade Survey <http://www.census.gov/eos/www/2007/table6.xls>
If you’re not sure where to do your shopping, choices of retail establishments abound: In 2007, there were 155,371 clothing and clothing accessories stores; 10,116 department stores; 9,515 hobby, toy and game shops; 30,920 gift, novelty and souvenir shops; 23,756 sporting goods stores; 27,484 jewelry stores; and 10,635 book stores across the nation. The figures shown are for locations with paid employees.
Source: County Business Patterns http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/014105.html
Christmas Trees and Decorations
$410 million
Sales by U.S. Christmas tree farmers in 2007.
Source: USDA Economic Research Service <http://www.ers.usda.gov/>
$109.3 million
Sales by Christmas tree farmers in Oregon in 2007, which led the nation.
Source: USDA Economic Research Service <http://www.ers.usda.gov/>
$470.3 million
The value of U.S. imports of Christmas tree ornaments from China between January and August 2009. China was the leading country of origin for such items. Similarly, China was the leading foreign source of artificial Christmas trees shipped to the United States ($28.6 million worth) during the same period.
Source: Foreign Trade Statistics http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/
Where the Toys are ... Made
94
Number of establishments around the country that primarily manufactured dolls and stuffed toys in 2007; they employed 1,641 people. California led the nation with 17 locations.
Source: County Business Patterns <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/014105.html>
683
The number of locations that primarily produced games, toys and children’s vehicles in 2007; they employed 10,708 workers. California led the nation with 112 establishments.
Source: County Business Patterns <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/014105.html>
AND MUCH MORE.....
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tweet[IWS} Mercer: MORE EMPLOYERS GIVING PAY RAISES in 2010 - Survey [21 December 2009]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Mercer
Figure 1: Projected base pay increases by employee group
http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?idContent=1366845#1
Figure 2: 2010 short-term incentive payouts by employee group
http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?idContent=1366845#2
Figure 3: 2010 projected base pay increases by select industry
http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?idContent=1366845#3
Press Release 21 December 2009
More employers granting pay raises in 2010, Mercer survey shows
http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?idContent=1366845
United States
New York , 21 December 2009
Having struggled with cost-containment challenges during the past 18 months, which resulted in workforce reductions and salary freezes, more organizations are planning to grant pay increases in 2010 as the economy begins to show signs of improvement.
According to Mercer’s 2009/2010 US Compensation Planning Survey Update, the number of organizations freezing salaries has declined compared to last year. While challenging economic conditions drove 30 percent of employers to freeze salaries across the board in 2009, just 14 percent are planning across-the-board freezes in 2010.
Of those employers granting base pay increases, the average increase is expected to be 2.7 percent in 2010, down from an actual 3.2 percent in 2009, and slightly less optimistic than the increases planned earlier this year for 2010. Including salary freezes, average base pay increases for 2010 are projected to be 2.3 percent (See Figure 1.)
Mercer’s most recent survey on pay trends, which was conducted in November and includes responses from more than 350 mid-size and large employers across the US, provides an update to its 2009/2010 US Compensation Planning Survey from earlier this year.
“While planned 2010 base increases have dropped a bit from employers’ projections in April and are less than 2009 increases, this is still positive news given the fewer firm-wide pay freezes and staff reductions planned now compared to this time last year,” said Loree Griffith, a principal with Mercer’s rewards consulting business.
According to Ms. Griffith, as companies prepare for an economic recovery, they are focusing on retaining employees and engaging top talent.
“Employers are still juggling selective hiring with selective cuts in staff as they evaluate specific workforce needs,” said Ms. Griffith. “Recognition programs, career development, training opportunities and creative communication campaigns – efforts that help keep employees engaged and motivated – along with incentive pay strategies will give companies a competitive edge as business begins to improve.”
Consistent with base pay increases, Mercer’s survey shows that short-term incentive payouts are projected to decrease slightly in 2010. On the whole, average payouts as a percentage of base pay for all employee groups are reasonably stable. (See Figure 2.)
Furthermore, differentiation of short-term incentive awards continues to vary by performance levels with the highest-performing employees projected to receive average payouts (as a percentage of base pay) of two to four times more than the lowest-performers.
Variation by industry
Despite projected 2010 salary increases that are lower than what has been experienced in recent years, industry variations are evident. While 20 percent of durable goods manufacturers and 18 percent of services firms are expected to maintain pay freezes in 2010, less than 5 percent of consumer goods and insurance firms are expected to have freezes.
Compared to the expected average pay increase of 2.7 percent in 2010, employers within the consumer goods and high-tech industries have the highest projected pay increase at 3.0 percent. In contrast, other industries expect to award less than average pay increases in 2010. Education is among these sectors with a projected base pay increase of 2.2 percent along with health and medical insurance projected at 2.4 percent. (See Figure 3.)
“The marketplace for top talent remains competitive,” said Ms. Griffith. “Despite budgetary constraints, growth sectors are boosting salaries for select employees, and overall in some cases, in an effort to attract and engage talent necessary to continue at existing performance levels.”
For more information or to purchase the full report of Mercer’s 2009/2010 US Compensation Planning Survey, visit www.imercer.com/cps or call 800 333 3070.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] GAO: STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS: Liabilities Are Largely Unfunded, but Some Governments Are Taking Action [online 23 December 2009]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Government Accountability Office (GAo)
State and Local Government Retiree Health Benefits: Liabilities Are Largely Unfunded, but Some Governments Are Taking Action. GAO-10-61, November 30.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-61
[full-text, 49 pages]
and
Highlights -
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d1061high.pdf
What GAO Found
The total unfunded OPEB liability reported in state and the largest local governments’ CAFRs exceeds $530 billion. However, as variations between studies’ totals show, totaling unfunded OPEB liabilities across governments is challenging for a number of reasons, including the way that governments disclose such data. The unfunded OPEB liabilities for states and local governments GAO reviewed varied widely in size. Most of these governments do not have any assets set aside to fund them. The total for unfunded OPEB liabilities is higher than $530 billion because GAO reviewed OPEB data in CAFRs for the 50 states and 39 large local governments but not data for all local governments or additional data reported in separate financial reports. Also, the CAFRs we reviewed report data that predate the market downturn. Finally, OPEB valuations are based on assumptions about the health care cost inflation rate and discount rates for assets, which also affect the size of the unfunded liability.
Some state and local governments have taken actions to address liabilities associated with retiree health benefits by setting aside assets to prefund the liabilities before employees retire and reducing these liabilities by changing the structure of retiree health benefits. Approximately 35 percent of the 89 governments for which GAO reviewed CAFRs reported having set aside some assets for OPEB liabilities, but the percentage of the OPEB liability funded varied. Among the 10 selected governments whose actions GAO reviewed in more detail, officials from the governments that were prefunding at least a portion of their retiree health liability reported using irrevocable trusts. However, these governments varied with regard to the source of the money used to prefund their retiree health liabilities and how they determined the level or amount to commit to prefunding each year. To address their retiree health liabilities, the governments GAO selected made three key types of changes to their retiree health benefits: changes to the type of retiree health benefit plan, to the level of government contribution, and to the eligibility requirements employees need to meet to qualify for retiree health benefits. Changes to the level of government contribution, such as reductions to the amount or proportion of health insurance premiums paid for by the government, was the most common benefit change reported. Some of the selected governments made more than one change to their retiree health benefit structure. The changes were most often applied to the retiree health benefits of newly hired employees or currently active employees.
State and local governments face unfunded OPEB liabilities and decisions about addressing liabilities amid increasing fiscal pressure. Assuming the continuation of current policies, by 2050 the size of the projected operating budget imbalance for the state and local government sector is 4.7 percent of gross domestic product, attributable largely to increases in health-related spending. Though Medicaid is the largest health-related expenditure, spending on state and local government retirees’ health benefits is projected to more than double as a share of total operating revenues to 2.1 percent by 2050.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] CRS: U.S. AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW & PROSPECTS [3 December 2009]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
U.S. Aerospace Manufacturing: Industry Overview and Prospects
Michaela D. Platzer, Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business
December 3, 2009
http://opencrs.com/document/R40967/2009-12-03/download/1013/
[full-text, 13 pages]
Summary
Aircraft and automobile manufacturing are considered by many to be the technological backbones
of the U.S. manufacturing base. As the Obama Administration and Congress debate how to
strengthen American manufacturing, aerospace is likely to receive considerable attention. Like
other manufacturing industries, the worldwide recession has affected aerospace manufacturing,
with both the defense and commercial sides of the industry facing difficult business conditions for
the near and medium term. This report primarily provides a snapshot of the U.S. commercial
(non-defense, non-space) aerospace manufacturing industry and a discussion of major trends
affecting the future of this industry.
The large commercial jet aviation market is a duopoly shared by the U.S. aircraft manufacturer
Boeing and the European aircraft maker Airbus, with fierce competition between these two
companies. The regional jet market is dominated by two non-U.S. headquartered manufacturers,
Brazil’s Embraer and Canada’s Bombardier, both of which utilize a high level of U.S.-produced
content in their products. The general aviation market includes companies such as Cessna and
Gulfstream.
Aerospace manufacturing is an important part of the U.S. manufacturing base. It comprised 2.8%
of the nation’s manufacturing workforce in 2008 and employed over 500,000 Americans in highskilled
and high-wage jobs. More than half (61%) of the nation’s aerospace industry jobs are
located in six states: Washington state, California, Texas, Kansas, Connecticut, and Arizona.
Several smaller aerospace manufacturing clusters are found in states such as Florida, Georgia,
Ohio, Missouri, and Alabama. Other aerospace centers are beginning to emerge in southern states,
such as South Carolina, where Boeing is now building a second production line to produce the
787 Dreamliner. Aerospace manufacturing contributes significantly to the U.S. economy, with
total sales by aerospace manufacturers (including defense and space) comprising 1.4% of the U.S.
gross domestic product in 2008.
U.S. aircraft manufacturers depend heavily on the international market for their sales. The
aerospace industry sold more than $95 billion in aerospace vehicles and equipment (including
defense and space) to overseas customers in markets such as Japan, France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom, and imported over $37 billion in aerospace products from abroad, providing a
significant positive contribution of $57.7 billion to the U.S. trade balance in 2008. Increasingly,
other markets are becoming important as an opportunity to increase U.S. sales, but also because
of the potential for future competitors to challenge the U.S. aerospace industry’s competitive
position. U.S. aerospace exports to China have increased since 2003, totaling $5.5 billion in 2008.
At the same time, some analysts maintain that China could become a global competitor in the
commercial aerospace market. Already, China is working to develop airplanes that could become
globally competitive in both the regional jet and large commercial jet aviation market. Russia has
stated that it wants to become the world’s third-largest aircraft manufacturer by 2015.
Congress has been discussing issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace
manufacturing industry for most of this decade. Among the concerns and issues affecting the
future of the commercial sector of the industry are export control policies, environmental
concerns, and an aging aerospace workforce. Additionally, the United States and the European
Union are engaged in a long-running trade dispute over subsidies, with each side claiming the
other subsidizes its domestic companies.
Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
Aerospace Manufacturing Industry Overview..............................................................................1
Aerospace Manufacturing Workforce ....................................................................................1
Economic Impact of Aerospace Manufacturing .....................................................................2
Aerospace Trade ...................................................................................................................3
The Commercial Jet Aircraft Market .....................................................................................4
The Regional Jet Market .......................................................................................................6
The General Aviation (GA) Aircraft Market ..........................................................................7
Potential Future Competition in the Aircraft Manufacturing Sector ..............................................8
Public Policy Issues ....................................................................................................................8
Export Controls.....................................................................................................................9
Environmental Concerns .......................................................................................................9
Aerospace Workforce Issues..................................................................................................9
Tables
Table 1. Boeing and Airbus Net Orders and Deliveries, 2000-2009..............................................5
Contacts
Author Contact Information ......................................................................................................10
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
