IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

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
________________________________________________________________________

ILR Press (an imprint of Cornell University Press) &

Economic Policy Institute/A State of Working America Publication

FAILURE BY DESIGN: The Story behind America's Broken Economy

by Josh Bivens; Lawrence Mishel (Foreword)

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=14226

      $18.95t cloth

2010, 120 pages, 6 x 9, 46 charts/graphs

ISBN: 978-0-8014-5015-0

In Failure by Design, the Economic Policy Institute’s Josh Bivens takes a step back from the acclaimed State of Working America series, building on its wealth of data to relate a compelling narrative of the U.S. economy’s struggle to emerge from the Great Recession of 2008. Bivens explains the causes and impact on working Americans of the most catastrophic economic policy failure since the 1920s.

As outlined clearly here, economic growth since the late 1970s has been slow and inequitably distributed, largely as a result of poor policy choices. These choices only got worse in the 2000s, leading to an anemic economic expansion. What growth we did see in the economy was fueled by staggering increases in private-sector debt and a housing bubble that artificially inflated wealth by trillions of dollars. As had been predicted, the bursting of the housing bubble had disastrous consequences for the broader economy, spurring a financial crisis and a rise in joblessness that dwarfed those resulting from any recession since the Great Depression. The fallout from the Great Recession makes it near certain that there will be yet another lost decade of income growth for typical families, whose incomes had not been boosted by the previous decade’s sluggish and localized economic expansion.

In its broad narrative of how the economy has failed to deliver for most Americans over much of the past three decades, Failure by Design also offers compelling graphic evidence on jobs, incomes, wages, and other measures of economic well-being most relevant to low- and middle-income workers. Josh Bivens tracks these trends carefully, giving a lesson in economic history that is readable yet rigorous in its analysis. Intended as both a stand-alone volume and a companion to the new State of Working America website that presents all of the data underlying this cogent analysis, Failure by Design will become required reading as a road map to the economic problems that confront working Americans.

About the Author

Josh Bivens has been an economist at the Economic Policy Institute since 2002. He is the author most recently of Everybody Wins, Except for Most of Us—What Economics Teaches About Globalization. Lawrence Mishel is the president of the Economic Policy Institute and its research director from 1987 to 1999. He is the coauthor of every edition of The State of Working America.

________________________________________________________________________

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 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
________________________________________________________________________

ILR Press (an imprint of Cornell University Press)

A COMPANY OF ONE: Insecurity, Independence, and the New World of White-Collar Unemployment

by Carrie M. Lane

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=9916

      $19.95s paper

Available in APRIL, 216 pages, 6 x 9, 5 halftones

ISBN: 978-0-8014-7727-0 

      $59.95x cloth

Available in APRIL, 216 pages, 6 x 9, 5 halftones

ISBN: 978-0-8014-4964-2 

Being laid off can be a traumatic event. The unemployed worry about how they will pay their bills and find a new job. In the American economy's boom-and-bust business cycle since the 1980s, repeated layoffs have become part of working life. In A Company of One, Carrie M. Lane finds that the new culture of corporate employment, changes to the job search process, and dual-income marriage have reshaped how today's skilled workers view unemployment. Through interviews with seventy-five unemployed and underemployed high-tech white-collar workers in the Dallas area over the course of the 2000s, Lane shows that they have embraced a new definition of employment in which all jobs are temporary and all workers are, or should be, independent "companies of one."

Following the experiences of individual jobseekers over time, Lane explores the central role that organized networking events, working spouses, and neoliberal ideology play in forging and reinforcing a new individualist, pro-market response to the increasingly insecure nature of contemporary employment. She also explores how this new perspective is transforming traditional ideas about masculinity and the role of men as breadwinners. Sympathetic to the benefits that this "company of one" ideology can hold for its adherents, Lane also details how it hides the true costs of an insecure workforce and makes collective and political responses to job loss and downward mobility unlikely.

Reviews

"A Company of One is terrific. It is refreshingly direct, carefully researched, well written and organized, framed in a novel and useful fashion, and, of serendipitous if grim circumstance, appears at an opportune time. Carrie M. Lane provides a marvelous summary of critical shifts in career structures and accompanying ideologies, both justifying and supporting increasingly insecure and episodic career paths, told in the voices of job-seeking high-tech workers."—John Van Maanen, Erwin H. Schell Professor of Organization Studies, MIT

"In this rich and sobering book, Carrie M. Lane offers a window into the lived complexities of neoliberalism. Here global high-tech restructuring is unearthed among American white collar middle classes, for whom anxiety, insecurity, and rugged individualism are resounding and sometimes perplexing bedfellows. A Company of One is a powerful and prescient ethnography with a subtle reading of gender, class, politics, and the meanings of work and selfhood in times of economic flux."—Carla Freeman, Winship Distinguished Research Professor of Anthropology and Women's Studies, Emory University

About the Author

Carrie M. Lane is Assistant Professor of American Studies at California State University, Fullerton.

________________________________________________________________________

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 Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Census

Finances of Selected State and Local Government Employee Retirement Systems: 4th Quarter 2010 [31 March 2011]

http://www.census.gov/govs/qpr/

[latest report will be posted on this site today]

This quarterly survey provides national summary data on the revenues, expenditures and composition of assets of the 100 largest state and local public employee retirement systems in the United States. These 100 systems comprise 89.4 percent of financial activity among such entities, based on the 2007 Census of Governments. This survey presents the most current data about investment decisions by state and local public employee retirement systems, which are among the largest types of institutional investors in the U.S. financial markets. These data tables are published three months after each calendar quarter and show national financial transactions and trends for the past five years.

________________________________________________________________________

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 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
________________________________________________________________________

MULTIFACTOR PRODUCTIVITY TRENDS - 2009 [30 March 2011]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod3.nr0.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod3.pdf

[full-text, 15 pages]

Private nonfarm business sector multifactor productivity grew at a modest 0.1

percent annual rate in 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported

today. (See chart 1, table A.)  In 2009, the gain in multifactor productivity

reflected decreases of 3.7 percent in output and 3.8 percent in the combined

inputs of capital and labor.  Capital services grew by 1.1 percent, and labor

input which is the combined effect of hours worked and labor composition

– fell 6.3 percent. (See table A, table 1.)  For both the private nonfarm

business and private business sectors, the declines recorded in output,

combined inputs of capital and labor, and labor input were the largest in the

series, which began in 1987.  Growth in capital services was also the slowest

recorded since the series began.

Multifactor productivity measures the change in output per unit of combined

capital and labor.  Multifactor productivity is designed to measure the joint

influences of technological change, efficiency improvements, returns to scale,

reallocation of resources, and other factors on economic growth, allowing for

the effects of capital and labor.  Multifactor productivity, therefore,

differs from labor productivity (output per hour worked) measures that are

published quarterly by BLS since it includes information on capital services

and other data that are not available on a quarterly basis.  Additionally,

multifactor productivity measures for the private business and private nonfarm

business sectors account for shifts in the composition of labor.  Estimates of

labor composition are not included in the quarterly labor productivity

measures.

Private business sector multifactor productivity grew 0.2 percent in 2009,

reversing a decline of 0.9 percent in 2008.  The multifactor productivity

gain in 2009 reflected decreases of 3.6 percent in output and 3.8 percent in

the combined inputs of capital and labor.  Capital services grew by 1.0

percent, and labor input fell by 6.3 percent. (See table A, table 2.)  

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 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
________________________________________________________________________

Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI)

EBRI NOTES

March 2011 • Vol. 32, No. 3

'The Impact of Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions for Retirement Savings Plans From Taxable Income: Results from the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey,' and 'Employer and Worker Contributions to Account-Based Health Plans, 2006–2010' [30 March 2011]

http://www.ebri.org/publications/notes/index.cfm?fa=notesDisp&content_id=4785

or

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_03_Mar-11.Taxes_Acct-HP1.pdf

[full-text, 20 pages]

RESTRICTING OR ENDING 401(K) DEDUCTIBILITY: In recent years, proposals have surfaced to reform the 401(k) system based on the assumption that higher-income individuals receive more tax-related benefits from these programs than do individuals in lower marginal tax brackets (as well as those who may pay no federal income taxes in a particular year). Some of these proposals have included modifications of the current federal income taxation treatment that excludes some or all of the contributions employees make to tax-qualified defined contribution plans.

WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED? Results from EBRI modeling from the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) finds that these proposals may have unintended consequences. Instead of reducing the contribution levels of those with larger taxable incomes (and hence higher marginal tax rates), the RCS results suggest that the categories of full-time workers most likely to reduce (in some cases completely) their contributions are those with the lowest household income; the lowest current amounts in savings and investments; the lowest educational levels; those who are single, never married or not married, or living with a partner; and those who work for small private organizations.

Press Release 30 March 2011
Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions to Retirement Savings Plans
From Taxable Income: Survey Evidence on Likely Impact on Retirement Savings
http://www.ebri.org/pdf/PR918.30Mar11.K-taxes.pdf

WASHINGTON—If Congress were to modify the exclusion of employee contributions to retirement savings plans from taxable income, who would most likely cut back on their savings: lower-income workers, or those with higher income?

Although conventional wisdom is that upper-income workers would be most affected, new findings by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) suggest that lower-income workers are far more likely to say they would reduce their contributions if the tax exclusion for employee contributions for retirement savings plans were lowered or eliminated.

Results from EBRI’s just-released 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) show that more than three-quarters of full-time workers with household income of $15,000 to $25,000 say that having the ability to deduct their contributions to retirement savings plans is “very important.”  More than half (56 percent) of full-time workers currently saving for retirement say they would reduce the amount they save if they were no longer able to deduct retirement savings plan contributions from taxable income.

By comparison, only 22 percent of full-time workers currently saving for retirement with household incomes of $100,000 or more say they would save less if the tax treatment of their retirement savings plan were reduced or eliminated.

The reactions become even starker as saving amounts grow, EBRI found: 71 percent of those with less than $1,000 in savings said they would reduce the amount saved if they were no longer allowed to deduct their contributions, compared with about 13 percent of those with $500,000 or more.

“Our research suggests that that some proposals to modify the exclusion of employee contributions for retirement savings plans from taxable income may have unintended consequences,” said Jack VanDerhei, EBRI research director and author of the report. “Instead of reducing the contribution levels of those with larger taxable incomes (and hence higher marginal tax rates), the RCS results indicate that workers with low levels of household income would be most likely to cut their contribution—in some cases completely.”

Those found to be most likely to reduce their contributions to retirement savings plans were individuals who work for small private organizations as well as those with relatively low educational levels.

Full results of the report are in the March 2011 EBRI Notes, “The Impact of Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions for Retirement Savings Plans from Taxable Income: Results from the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey,” online at www.ebri.org  

In recent years, proposals have surfaced to reform the 401(k) system based on the assumption that higher-income individuals receive more tax-related benefits from these programs than do individuals in lower marginal tax brackets (as well as those who may pay no federal income taxes in a particular year).  Some of these proposals have included modifications of the current federal income taxation treatment that excludes some or all of the contributions employees make to tax-qualified defined contribution plans. 

From a strictly financial perspective, VanDerhei said, it is logical to assume that the lower-income individuals (those most likely to pay no or low marginal tax rates and therefore have a smaller financial incentive to deduct retirement savings contributions from taxable income) would be least likely to rate the exclusion of employee contributions for retirement savings plans from taxable income as “very important.” 

However, the RCS data show that those in the household income category of $15,000 to $25,000 actually have the largest percentage of respondents classifying the tax deductibility of contributions as very important.  While higher-income workers would be the most likely to be negatively affected by a proposal to cut or eliminate the exclusion of employee contributions for retirement savings plans from taxable income, VanDerhei noted that behavioral economics has shown that workers’ reaction in similar situations are often at odds with what would have been logically predicted.

The EBRI analysis notes that determining the overall tax advantage of making before-tax contributions to a 401(k) plan involves the prediction of several factors, including amounts and timing of contributions, marginal tax rates during the accumulation and decumulation periods, rates of return, and withdrawal behavior during the decumulation period. 

Among the report’s other findings:

            Results by savings level: Of the full-time workers who are currently saving for retirement who report that they currently have less than $1,000, 71.3 percent indicate they would reduce the amount saved. This value declines to 38.8 percent for those with savings of $1,000 to less than $10,000.

            Results by education level:   Approximately 32.2 percent of high school graduates indicate they would reduce savings, whereas only 22.1 percent of those with a graduate or professional degree have a similar response.

EBRI is a private, nonprofit research institute based in Washington, DC, that focuses on health, savings, retirement, and economic security issues. EBRI does not lobby and does not take policy positions.

###

PR #918

________________________________________________________________________

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 Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

World Bank

POPULATION AGING: IS LATIN AMERICA READY?

http://issuu.com/world.bank.publications/docs/9780821384879/1?zoomed=&zoomPercent=&zoomX=&zoomY=&noteText=&noteX=&noteY=&viewMode=magazine

[Read Online: full-text, 324 pages]

Report advises Latin American countries to prepare for a ‘greying revolution’; rapid aging no longer a rich country phenomenon.

Region’s life expectancy jumped by 22 years in last half-century; population now dominated by working adults with fewer children.

Report recommends building stronger health systems, delaying retirement age, reforming pension systems and creating more jobs for women to expand the workforce.

Press Release 28 March 2011

Latin America: Ready for an Aging Revolution?

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:22868886~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html

[excerpt]

March 28, 2011—Population aging is a global issue that affects a growing number of countries around the world, especially at a time when family support and other traditional safety nets have become far less certain in the aftermath of the global economic crisis.

In Latin America, for example, life expectancy has jumped by 22 years over the last 50 years and its population is now dominated by working-age adults with significantly fewer children. The region faces the prospect of rapid aging.

A new report from the World Bank’s Human Development Network warns that governments and communities in the region cannot afford to be complacent about a ‘greying revolution,’ given that the next 50 years will be very different from its past half century.

According to Population Aging: Is Latin America Ready?, economic growth in Latin America will be more challenging in countries with large numbers of elderly people and meeting health care, pension, and other needs will be especially difficult for low- and middle-income countries. Establishing appropriate policies and institutions to accommodate the region’s powerful demographic shifts will be vital to safeguard Latin America’s social and economic future, says the report.

AND 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                  
****************************************

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)

Private Health Insurance Coverage: Expert Views on Approaches to Encourage Voluntary Enrollment

GAO-11-392R,  February 25, 2011 [25 March 2011]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11392r.pdf

[full-text, 28 pages]

Summary

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-392R

To help expand health insurance coverage among the 50 million uninsured Americans, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended (PPACA) mandates that individuals, subject to certain exceptions, obtain health insurance coverage or pay a financial penalty beginning in 2014--the "individual mandate". At the same time, PPACA generally requires insurers to accept all applicants, regardless of health status, and prohibits insurers from excluding coverage based on any preexisting conditions. An individual mandate such as PPACA requires has been the subject of continued debate. Many health care policy experts have stressed the importance of a mandate in expanding health care coverage and keeping premiums affordable. For example, experts have noted that such a federal requirement may be necessary to prompt many individuals, such as younger, healthier individuals, to obtain coverage they otherwise would forego--particularly once they are guaranteed access to that coverage later when they may need it. They suggest that bringing these younger, healthier individuals into the insurance market is necessary to avoid adverse selection, whereby disproportionately less healthy individuals who need health care services enroll in coverage, leading to higher premiums that further discourage healthy individuals from enrolling. Some experts have argued that the individual mandate does not go far enough to ensure that all of the uninsured enroll, and that to do so would require heavier penalties that are fully enforced to be truly effective. Other experts suggest that, rather than requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage, a more appropriate role for the federal government would be to consider alternatives to encourage voluntary enrollment. Some of these experts also question the legality of a federal mandate. Since its enactment, the federal mandate has been subject to a number of court challenges to its constitutionality. Because of the possibility that legislative or judicial action could result in a change to, or elimination of, the mandate, you asked us to identify potential alternatives to encourage, rather than require individuals to obtain private health insurance coverage. For this report, we obtained the views of multiple experts on the range of approaches Congress could consider to encourage voluntary enrollment in private health insurance coverage.

The experts we interviewed discussed several specific approaches to encourage voluntary health insurance enrollment during our interviews. The approaches are summarized below, generally presented in the order of frequency with which they were proposed by the experts for consideration. These approaches are not endorsed by GAO, nor necessarily by any particular experts we interviewed, or the organizations they represent. (1) Modify open enrollment periods and impose late enrollment penalties. (2) Expand employers' roles in autoenrolling and facilitating employees' health insurance enrollment. (3) Conduct a public education and outreach campaign. (4) Provide broad access to personalized assistance for health coverage enrollment. (5) Impose a tax to pay for uncompensated care. (6) Allow greater variation in premium rates based on enrollee age. (7) Condition the receipt of certain government services upon proof of health insurance coverage. (8) Use health insurance agents and brokers differently. (9) Require or encourage credit rating agencies to use health insurance status as a factor in determining credit ratings. In discussing these approaches, four key themes emerged. First, experts emphasized that most people would prefer to purchase health insurance coverage; however, to the extent that high cost is a barrier, the use of financial incentives is key. Second, they stated that regardless of the particular approach taken to increase voluntary enrollment in the absence of an individual mandate, the availability of affordable, high-quality health care plans with a basic set of benefits, and full coverage of preventive care services is essential to encouraging voluntary enrollment in the coverage. Third, experts said that strong marketing and public education from trusted, community-based sources informing people about their health care choices, their costs, and the consequences of not enrolling in a timely manner are important. And fourth, they said convenient access to the health insurance system through multiple access points staffed by knowledgeable individuals would further facilitate enrollment. Experts expressed important cautions in interpreting their comments on these approaches. Not all the experts concurred that any particular approach merited consideration, and those who proposed an approach for consideration did not necessarily suggest its impact would be significant or comparable to that of an individual mandate. Experts noted that various approaches would have different impacts on encouraging voluntary enrollment, and that a combination of multiple approaches holds more potential to encourage voluntary enrollment than any single approach. For example, a marketing and public education campaign may be combined with other approaches, and would be important to the successful implementation of any effort to encourage enrollment in health insurance. Furthermore, they emphasized that independent research is required to fully evaluate the potential effectiveness and legal or other implications associated with any approach or combination of approaches.

________________________________________________________________________

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 Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________

Challenger, Gray, & Chrismas, Inc.

CONTACTS 

James K. Pedderson, Director of Public Relations

Office: 312-422-5078

Mobile: 847-567-1463

jamespedderson@challengergray.com

Colleen Madden, Media Relations Manager

Office: 312-422-5074

colleenmadden@challengergray.com

March Job Cuts Decline 18% to 41,528

130,749 q1 job cuts lowest since 1995

CHICAGO, March 30, 2011 – While government-sector job cuts rose to their highest level in 12 months, the pace of downsizing declined in March as employers announced plans to reduce payrolls by 41,528 jobs during the month, down 18 percent from 50,702 job cuts announced in February.

The report on March job-cut announcements released Wednesday by global outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. revealed that March job cuts were down 39 percent from a year ago, when employers announced 67,611 job cuts. 

Overall, employers have announced 130,749 job cuts through the first quarter, 28 percent fewer than the 181,183 planned layoffs announced in the same period of 2010.  The three-month tally is, in fact, the lowest first-quarter total since 1995, when employers announced 97,716 job cuts from January through March.

Once again, the public sector dominated monthly job cuts, accounting for 19,099 or 46 percent of all March layoffs.  The 19,099 planned job cuts announced by government and non-profit organizations increased 17 percent from 16,380 in February.  It is the highest monthly total for this sector since March 2010, when it reached 50,604. 

If there is any silver lining in the government layoff figures, it is that they are down significantly from a year ago.  The March figure is 62 percent lower than a year earlier and the 41,929 job cuts in the sector through the first three months of the year is 33 percent lower than the 62,700 government layoffs announced in the first quarter of 2010.

“Despite the decline from last year, it is difficult to be optimistic about the outlook for government workers.  Most cities and states have only just begun to address their massive budget deficits and we have yet to see how budget cutbacks are going to impact workers at the federal level,” said Rick Cobb, executive vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

“The good news is that other areas of the economy appear to have stabilized in terms of downsizing activity.  The sectors that had the heaviest job losses at this point a year ago have seen significantly fewer layoffs,” said Cobb.

Job cuts in the pharmaceutical industry have fallen 87 percent from 26,165 job cuts a year ago to 3,385 this year.  Automotive job cuts, which totaled 7,728 at this point last year, are down 53 percent to 3,668.  Job cuts in the telecommunications sector are down 69 percent from 14,795 to 4,552.

“The hope is that a few months of even slightly stronger hiring in the private sector will tip the scales toward accelerated job creation.  Employers are watching the labor market closely and if it starts to look like the talent pool is getting shallower, then they could be compelled to increase the rate of hiring,” said Cobb.

# # #

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

JOB CUTS BY INDUSTRY

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

JOB CUTS BY REGION, STATE

MARCH

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

JOB CUTS BY REGION, STATE

MARCH

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

JOB CUT REASONS

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

QUARTER-BY-QUARTER

*Estimate based on half-year total. Challenger began tracking job-cut data in 1993.  Before that, it was tabulated by an independent newsletter no longer published.

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

ANNOUNCED HIRING PLANS

MONTHLY TOTALS

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CHALLENGER, GRAY & CHRISTMAS, INC.

JOB-CUT ANNOUNCEMENT REPORT

ANNOUNCED HIRING PLANS

MARCH

Copyright 2011 Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

________________________________________________________________________

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                  
****************************************