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

________________________________________________________________________

NO MESSAGES will be sent until 20 August 2012. This service is only available during the academic year – mid-August to mid-May.

________________________________________________________________________

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.

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)

Unemployed Older Workers: Many Experience Challenges Regaining Employment and Face Reduced Retirement Security.  GAO-12-445, April 25. [online 15 May 2012]

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-445
or
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590408.pdf

[full-text, 90 pages]

and

Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590409.pdf

What GAO Found

As with many other demographic groups, older workers’ unemployment overall and long-term unemployment rates have increased dramatically since the recession began in 2007. In December 2011, the unemployment rate for older workers was 6.0 percent, up from 3.1 at the start of the recession, but down from its peak of 7.6 percent in February 2010. In particular, long-term unemployment rose substantially, and at a greater rate for older than younger workers. By 2011, 55 percent of unemployed older workers had been actively seeking a job for more than half a year (27 weeks or more). Meanwhile, the long-term trend of rising labor force participation rates among older workers has continued, with the recession possibly amplifying this trend.

Long-term unemployment can put older workers at risk of deferring needed medical care, losing their homes, and accumulating debt. The experts and staff GAO interviewed at some one-stop career centers, as well as the unemployed older workers who participated in GAO’s focus groups, identified employer reluctance to hire older workers as a key challenge that older workers face in finding reemployment. They also identified out-of-date skills, discouragement and depression, and inexperience with online applications as reemployment barriers for older workers. Some one-stop staff who serve older workers told GAO that providing the type of assistance some older workers need to address these unique challenges can be very time-consuming. (For audio clips from GAO’s focus groups with unemployed older workers, use this link: http://www.gao.gov/multimedia/video/#video_id=590295)

Long-term unemployment can substantially diminish an older worker’s future retirement income in several ways. First, it can force a worker to stop working and stop saving for retirement earlier than the worker had planned. Second, long-term unemployment can lead individuals to draw down their retirement savings to cover living expenses while they are unemployed, which was a common life experience described by GAO’s focus group participants. GAO illustrated how a hypothetical worker who had $70,000 in retirement savings at age 55 and withdrew 50 percent of those savings during a 2 year period of unemployment, would need about another 5 ½ years of work and saving to rebuild the retirement account to the level it had been before unemployment began. In addition, long-term unemployment can motivate older workers to claim early Social Security retirement benefits, which will result in lower monthly benefits for workers and their survivors for the rest of their lives.

Experts GAO interviewed selected various policies that have been proposed to help address unemployed older workers’ reemployment challenges. Experts selected these policies from a broad list GAO compiled from previous academic studies. For example, two of the policies that experts selected would provide incentives such as temporary wage or training subsidies for employers to hire long-term unemployed older workers. In the current context of high unemployment and slow job creation, the impact of most of these policies is likely to be muted by limited job openings. After an interagency Taskforce issued its report on the aging of the American workforce in 2008, Labor implemented several strategies the report recommended, but since the recession started, Labor shifted focus to responding to increased demand for services. As the economy improves, Labor could refocus on older job seekers and consider what additional strategies would help address their unique reemployment challenges, in light of recent economic and technological changes.

Why GAO Did This Study

The number of workers age 55 and over experiencing long-term unemployment has grown substantially since the recession began in 2007. This raises concerns about how long-term unemployment will affect older workers’ reemployment prospects and future retirement income.

In light of these developments, GAO examined (1) how older workers’ employment status has changed since the recession, (2) what risks unemployed older workers face and what challenges they experience in finding reemployment, (3) how long-term unemployment could affect older workers’ retirement income, and (4) what other policies might help them return to work and what steps the Department of Labor (Labor) has taken to help unemployed older workers.

To conduct this work, GAO analyzed nationally representative datasets, led focus groups of unemployed older workers, modeled how job loss affects retirement income, and interviewed experts and federal and local officials.

What GAO Recommends

To foster the employment of older workers, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor consider what strategies are needed to address the unique needs of older job seekers, in light of recent economic and technological changes.

Labor agreed with our recommendation. GAO received technical comments on a draft of this report from Labor and the Social Security Administration, and incorporated them as appropriate.

For more information, contact Charlie Jeszeck at (202) 512-7215 jeszeckc@gao.gov.

________________________________________________________________________

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.

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

________________________________________________________________________

REAL EARNINGS --APRIL 2012 [15 May 2012]

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

or

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

[full-text, 5 pages]

All employees

Real average hourly earnings for all employees was unchanged from March to April, seasonally adjusted,

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This stems from no change in both the Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and average hourly earnings.

Real average weekly earnings was unchanged over the month, as a result of no change in both the real

average hourly earnings and the average workweek. Since reaching a peak in October 2010, real average

weekly earnings have fallen 1.2 percent.

Real average hourly earnings fell 0.5 percent, seasonally adjusted, from April 2011 to April 2012. A 0.3

percent increase in average weekly hours, combined with the decline in real average hourly earnings,

resulted in a 0.2 percent decrease in real average weekly earnings during this period.

Production and nonsupervisory employees

Real average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory employees rose 0.2 percent from March

to April, seasonally adjusted. The increase stemmed from a 0.2 percent gain in average hourly earnings,

combined with an unchanged Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers

(CPI-W).

Real average weekly earnings rose 0.2 percent over the month, as a result of the increase in real average

hourly earnings, combined with an unchanged workweek. Since reaching a peak in October 2010, real

average weekly earnings for production and nonsupervisory employees have fallen 1.6 percent.

Real average hourly earnings fell 0.7 percent, seasonally adjusted, from April 2011 to April 2012. The

decrease in real average hourly earnings, combined with a 0.3 percent increase in average weekly hours,

resulted in a 0.4 percent decrease in real average weekly earnings during this period.

Real Earnings for May 2012 is scheduled to be released on Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.

(EDT). 

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

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

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

________________________________________________________________________

Consumer Price Index - April 2012 [15 May 2012]

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

or

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

[full-text, 40 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

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

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was

unchanged in April on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all

items index increased 2.3 percent before seasonal adjustment.

 The energy index, which had risen in each of the three previous

months, declined in April on a seasonally adjusted basis and offset

increases in the other major indexes. The gasoline index fell 2.6

percent in April and accounted for most of the decline in energy,

though the indexes for natural gas and fuel oil decreased as well.

The food index rose in April as five of the six major grocery store

food group indexes increased.

 The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.2 percent in

April, the same increase as in March. Increases in the indexes for

shelter, used cars and trucks, medical care, airline fares, new

vehicles, and apparel all contributed significantly to the April

increase.

 The 12-month change in the index for all items was 2.3 percent in

April, the lowest figure since February 2011. The index for all items

less food and energy also increased 2.3 percent over the last 12

months. This is the first time since October 2009 that the 12-month

all items change has not exceeded the 12-month change for all items

less food and energy. The food index has risen 3.1 percent over the

last 12 months, and the energy index has risen 0.9 percent.

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.

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)

Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues

Paul W. Parfomak,Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy

Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy

Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy

Adam Vann, Legislative Attorney

May 9, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41668.pdf

[full-text, 40 pages]

Summary

In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. Department

of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands

region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would ultimately

have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at

Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline spur so that oil

from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL.

As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a

Presidential Permit from the State Department. In evaluating such a permit application, the

department must determine whether it is in the “national interest,” considering the project’s

potential effects on the environment, economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors.

Environmental impacts are considered pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and

documented by the State Department in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The final EIS

was released for the Keystone XL pipeline permit application in August 2011, after which a 90-

day public review period began to make the national interest determination. During that time the

State Department determined that more information was needed to consider an alternative

pipeline route avoiding the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, an extensive

sand dune formation with highly porous soil and a shallow depth to groundwater recharging the

Ogallala aquifer.

The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78) required the Secretary of

State to approve or deny the project within 60 days. On January 18, 2012, the State Department,

with the President’s consent, denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time under this

deadline to properly assess the reconfigured project. Subsequently, TransCanada announced that

it would proceed with development of the pipeline segment connecting Cushing, OK, to the Gulf

Coast as a stand-alone project not requiring a Presidential Permit—a decision supported by the

Obama administration. In April 2012, TransCanada submitted to Nebraska proposed pipeline

routes avoiding the Sand Hills. Subsequently, on May 4, 2012, TransCanada submitted a new

application for a Presidential Permit that includes proposed new routes through Nebraska. With

the new permit application, the NEPA compliance process begins anew, although it may draw

from relevant existing analysis and documentation prepared for the August 2011 final EIS.

In the wake of the State Department’s denial of the Presidential Permit, Congress has debated

legislative options addressing the Keystone XL pipeline. The Surface Transportation Extension

Act of 2012, Part II (H.R. 4348) and the North American Energy Access Act (H.R. 3548) would

transfer the permitting authority for the Keystone XL pipeline project to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, requiring FERC to issue a permit within 30 days of enactment. The

Keystone For a Secure Tomorrow Act (H.R. 3811), the Grow America Act of 2012 (S. 2199), S.

2041 (a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline), the EXPAND Act (H.R. 4301), and the

Energizing America through Employment Act (H.R. 4000) would immediately approve the

original permit application filed by TransCanada. All seven bills include provisions allowing for

later alteration of the pipeline route in Nebraska. S. 2100 and H.R. 4211 would suspend sales of

petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until issuance of a Presidential Permit

for the Keystone XL project. Changing or eliminating the State Department’s role in issuing

cross-border infrastructure permits may raise questions about the President’s executive authority,

however. H.R. 3900 would seek to ensure that crude oil transported by the Keystone XL pipeline,

or resulting refined petroleum products, would be sold only into U.S. markets, but this bill could

raise issues related to international trade agreements.

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Pipeline Description .................................................................................................................. 3

Keystone XL Extension to Bakken Oil Production............................................................. 5

Presidential Permit Application Requirements ................................................................................ 6

Documenting Environmental Impacts Under NEPA................................................................. 7

Overview of the NEPA Process for the XL Pipeline Project............................................... 7

The Role of Environmental Impacts in a National Interest Determination....................... 11

Presidential Permit Denial....................................................................................................... 12

The New Permit Application Process................................................................................ 13

State Siting and Additional Environmental Requirements ...................................................... 14

Legislative Efforts to Change Permitting Authority................................................................ 15

Arguments For and Against the Pipeline ....................................................................................... 16

Impacts to the Nebraska Sand Hills......................................................................................... 17

Impact on U.S. Energy Security .............................................................................................. 19

Canadian Oil Imports in the Overall U.S. Supply Context ............................................... 19

Oil Sands, Keystone XL, and the U.S. Oil Market ........................................................... 21

Economic Impact of the Pipeline............................................................................................. 26

Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................... 27

Land Use and Oil Spill Impacts............................................................................................... 28

Figures

Figure 1. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline and Original Keystone XL Proposed Route ................. 4

Figure 2. Keystone XL Preferred Alternative Route in Nebraska ................................................. 18

Figure 3. Gross U.S. Oil Imports by Major Sources...................................................................... 21

Figure 4. Proposed Enbridge Flanagan South Pipeline Route....................................................... 24

Tables

Table 1. NEPA Milestones for TransCanada’s 2008 Presidential Permit Application ..................... 9

Appendixes

Appendix A. Presidential Permitting Authority............................................................................. 31

Appendix B. Milestones in the Initial NEPA Process.................................................................... 33

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 37

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 37

________________________________________________________________________

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.

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)

Outsourcing and Insourcing Jobs in the U.S. Economy: Evidence Based on Foreign Investment Data

James K. Jackson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

May 10, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32461.pdf

[full-text, 47 pages]

Summary

The impact of foreign direct investment on U.S. employment is provoking a national debate.

While local communities compete with one another for investment projects, many of the residents

of those communities fear losing their jobs as U.S. companies seek out foreign locations and

foreign workers to perform work that traditionally has been done in the United States, generally

referred to as outsourcing. Some observers suggest that current U.S. experiences with outsourcing

are different from those that have preceded them and that this merits legislative actions by

Congress to blunt the economic impact of these activities. Other observers argue that investing

abroad by U.S. multinational companies impedes the growth of new jobs in the economy and

thwarts the nation’s investments in high technology sectors. Some opponents also argue that midcareer

workers who lose good-paying manufacturing and service-sector jobs likely will never

recover their standard of living.

Economists and others generally argue that free and unimpeded international flows of capital

have a positive impact on both domestic and foreign economies. Direct investment is unique

among international capital flows because it adds permanently to the capital stock and skill set of

a nation, but it also challenges the general theory of capital flows because of the presence of

strong cross-border and intra-industry investment. Supporters contend that to the extent that

foreign investment shifts jobs abroad, it is a minor component of the overall economic picture and

that it is offset somewhat by the investment of foreign firms in the U.S. economy (referred to as

insourcing), which supports existing jobs and creates new jobs in the economy.

Broad, comprehensive data on U.S. multinational companies generally lag behind current events

by two years and were not developed to address the issue of jobs outsourcing. Many economists

argue, however, that there is little evidence to date to support the notion that the overseas

investment activities of U.S. multinational companies play a significant role in the rate at which

jobs are created in the U.S. economy. Instead, they argue that the source of job creation in the

economy is rooted in the combination of macroeconomic policies the nation has chosen, the rate

of productivity growth, and the availability of resources. This report addresses these issues by

analyzing the extent of direct investment into and out of the economy, the role such investment

plays in U.S. trade, jobs, and production, and the relationship between direct investment and the

broader economic changes that are occurring in the U.S. economy.

Contents

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

U.S. and Foreign Multinational Companies .................................................................................... 4

Employment .............................................................................................................................. 6

Employment Trends................................................................................................................. 10

Employment by Sector and Area............................................................................................. 12

Gross Product................................................................................................................................. 16

U.S. Multinational Companies ................................................................................................ 17

Foreign-Owned Firms ............................................................................................................. 19

Cyclical vs. Structural Changes ..................................................................................................... 20

Trade .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Sales............................................................................................................................................... 31

Sales of Services...................................................................................................................... 33

Research and Development ........................................................................................................... 35

Why Firms Invest Abroad.............................................................................................................. 36

Ownership-Specific Advantages.............................................................................................. 38

Location Advantages ............................................................................................................... 39

Commercial Benefits ............................................................................................................... 40

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Figures

Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States and U.S. Investment Abroad, Annual Flows 1990-2009 ............................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Inward and Outward Global Direct Investment Position, By Major Area, 2009............. 3

Figure 3. Index of Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, 1992-2008 (1990 = 100)............................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4. Employment of the Foreign Affiliates of U.S. Parent Companies as a Share of the Total Employment of U.S. Multinational Companies, 1985-2008 ....................................... 11

Figure 5. U.S. Direct Investment Position Abroad and Foreign Direct Investment Position in the United States, Cumulative Position by Country, 2009 ..................................................... 14

Figure 6. Employment of U.S. Foreign Affiliates Abroad and Affiliates of Foreign Firms in the U.S., by Country or Region, 2008 .................................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Average Annual Percent Change in Gross Product of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods ........................................................................... 22

Figure 8. Average Annual Percent Change in Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods.................................................................................. 24

Figure 9. Average Annual Percent Change in Manufacturing Gross Product of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods ........................................................ 25

Figure 10. Average Annual Percent Change in Manufacturing Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods ........................................................ 26

Figure 11. Intra-Firm MNC Trade as a Share of Total U.S. Exports and Imports, 1990-2008 ............................................................................................................................................ 29

Tables

Table 1. Global Annual Inflows of Foreign Direct Investment, By Major Area.............................. 4

Table 2. Select Data on U.S. Multinational Companies and on Foreign Firms Operating in the United States, 2008................................................................................................................. 5

Table 3. Gross Product and Manufacturing Gross Product by U.S. Multinational Companies, 1994-2008................................................................................................................. 6

Table 4. Employment of U.S. Multinational Companies and the Affiliates of Foreign Firms, 1992-2008.......................................................................................................................... 8

Table 5. Employment of Non-Bank U.S. Foreign Affiliates by Major Sector and Area, 2006-2008................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 6. Gross Product of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Majority-Owned Foreign Affiliates ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 7. U.S. Direct Investment Abroad; Investment Outflows for Selected Regions and Countries, 2005-2009 ................................................................................................................. 18

Table 8. Average Annual Percent Change in Gross Product and Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Industries, Selected Periods............. 23

Table 9. Changes in Gross Product and Employment Among U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates for Selected Industries ......................................................................... 27

Table 10. Multinational Corporations’ Intra-Firm Exports of U.S. Goods, 1992-2007................. 30

Table 11. Multinational Corporations’ Intra-Firm Imports of U.S. Goods, 1992-2008................. 31

Table 12. Sales of Goods and Services by U.S. Foreign Affiliates by Destination and Industry, 2008 ............................................................................................................................. 32

Table 13. Sales of Services by U.S. Foreign Affiliates by Destination and Industry, 2008........... 34

Table 14. Sales of Services by U.S. Foreign Affiliates, Average Annual Rates of Change for Selected Periods .................................................................................................................... 35

Table 15. Expenditures on Research and Development by U.S. Multinational Firms and by the Affiliates of Foreign Firms Operating in the United States ............................................. 36

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 43

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 43

________________________________________________________________________

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.

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)

Job Growth During the Recovery

Linda Levine, Specialist in Labor Economics

May 10, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41434.pdf

[full-text, 15 pages]

Summary

Congress in recent years passed a number of bills intended in part to jump-start a recovery in the

labor market from the recession that began in December 2007. Members of the 112th Congress are

interested in the labor market’s response to these measures to help them decide how well the

legislation has worked and whether additional job-creation legislation may be warranted in light

of the pace and composition of job growth since the recession’s end in June 2009. Accordingly,

employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is analyzed in this report from

December 2007 to June 2009 (the recession), from June 2009 to April 2012 (the recovery through

the latest month for which data were available at the time of the report’s preparation), and from

December 2007 to April 2012.

A “jobless recovery” prevailed across firms in the private nonfarm sector until March 2010. That

is to say, the number of private-sector jobs generally continued to fall until nine months into the

recovery. The recovery was jobless until October 2010, 16 months into the recovery, across all

employers in the public and private sectors of the nonfarm economy. At that point, net job growth

in the overall economy began not because government employment started to rise but because it

fell more slowly while private-sector employment continued to grow. Given the pace of job

growth during the recovery, a few more years will likely elapse before the approximately 7.5

million jobs lost during the recession are recouped.

The two industries hardest hit by the recession—manufacturing and construction—have been

recovering at very different rates. Manufacturing employment surpassed its level at the

recession’s end by May 2011. In contrast, the construction industry in April 2012 was 450,000

jobs below its employment level in June 2009. Some of the states with the most depressed

housing markets as well as manufacturing-dependent states have experienced large job losses

(Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, and Ohio).

During the recession, women lost relatively fewer jobs than men in part because the construction

and manufacturing industries predominantly employ men. During the recovery, women gained

relatively fewer jobs than men in part because women are a substantial presence in the

occupations (e.g., teachers) that account for much of the local and state government workforces.

The oldest and youngest workers have fared quite differently over the past few years. Workers

aged 55 and older enjoyed job growth during the recession and recovery. The youngest age group

(16-19-year olds) experienced the largest percentage declines in employment during the recession

and recovery.

The employment of Hispanic workers returned fairly quickly to its level at the recession’s start,

despite the ethnic group’s concentration in the hard-hit construction industry. Hispanic

employment also is concentrated in the leisure and hospitality industry group, which by early

2012 had recouped all its job losses.

The only education group to have similarly regained all its lost jobs are workers with at least a

bachelor’s degree. Employment among the most educated group of workers decreased very little

during the recession and has increased greatly during the recovery.

Contents

Slow Job Growth Overall, Led by the Private Sector...................................................................... 1

Industry Characteristics of Job Loss and Gain ................................................................................ 6

Manufacturing and Construction............................................................................................... 6

Private-Service Sector Industries............................................................................................... 7

Government ............................................................................................................................... 8

Individual Characteristics of Job Loss and Gain ............................................................................. 9

Figures

Figure 1. Employment Trend During the December 2007-June 2009 Recession and Subsequent Recovery....................................... 3

Tables

Table 1. Employment Change During the 2007-2009 Recession and the Ensuing Recovery, by Industry..................................... 5

Table 2. Employment Change During the 2007-2009 Recession and the Ensuing Recovery, by Gender, Age, Race, Ethnicity, and Educational Attainment ...................... 11

________________________________________________________________________

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.

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)

Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An Economic Analysis

James K. Jackson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

May 10, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21857.pdf

[full-text, 11 pages]

Summary

Foreign direct investment in the United States declined sharply after 2000, when a record $300

billion was invested in U.S. businesses and real estate. (Note: The United States defines foreign

direct investment as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person

[individual, branch, partnership, association, government, etc.] of 10% or more of the voting

securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an

unincorporated U.S. business enterprise. 15 CFR §806.15 [a][1].) In 2010, according to U.S.

Department of Commerce data, foreigners invested $236 billion in U.S. businesses and real

estate. Foreign direct investments are highly sought after by many state and local governments

that are struggling to create additional jobs in their localities. While some in Congress encourage

such investment to offset the perceived negative economic effects of U.S. firms investing abroad,

others are concerned about foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms that are considered essential to U.S.

national and economic security.

Contents

Recent Investments.......................................................................................................................... 1

Acquisitions and Establishments ..................................................................................................... 6

Economic Performance.................................................................................................................... 6

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................... 8

Figures

Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States and U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, Annual Flows, 1990-2010................ 1

Tables

Table 1. Foreign Direct Investment Position in the United States on a Historical-Cost Basis at Year-End 2010.................... 4

Contacts

Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 8

________________________________________________________________________

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.

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)

Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs

Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, Specialist in Social Policy

May 11, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40929.pdf

[full-text, 46 pages]

Summary

In an increasingly global economy, and with retirement starting for the Baby Boomer generation,

Congress has indicated a strong interest in ensuring that today’s young people have the

educational attainment and employment experience needed to become highly skilled workers,

contributing taxpayers, and successful participants in civic life. Challenges in the economy and

among certain youth populations, however, have heightened concern among policymakers that

some young people may not be prepared to fill these roles.

The employment levels for youth under age 25 have declined markedly in recent years, including

in the wake of the 2007-2009 recession. Certain young people—including high school dropouts,

current and former foster youth, and other at-risk populations—face challenges in completing

school and entering the workforce. While the United States has experienced a dramatic increase

in secondary school achievement in the past several decades, approximately 9% of youth ages 18

through 24 have not attained a high school diploma or its equivalent. In addition, millions of

young people are out of school and not working.

Since the 1930s, federal job training and employment programs and policies have sought to

connect vulnerable youth to work and school. Generally, these young people have been defined as

being at-risk because they are economically disadvantaged and have a barrier to employment.

During the Great Depression, the focus was on employing young men who were idle through

public works and other projects. The employment programs from this era included an educational

component to encourage youth to obtain their high school diplomas. Beginning in the 1960s, the

federal government began funding programs for low-income youth that address their multiple

needs through job training, educational services, and supportive services.

Today’s primary federal youth employment and job training programs are authorized under the

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA, P.L. 105-220), and are carried out by the Department of

Labor’s (DOL’s) Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Although these programs are

funded somewhat differently and have varying eligibility requirements, they generally have a

common purpose—to provide youth with educational and employment opportunities and access

to leadership development and community service activities. Many of the programs target the

most vulnerable youth, including school dropouts, homeless youth, and youth offenders. Based on

funding and the number of youth served, the WIA Youth Activities (Youth) formula program and

Job Corps are the largest. The Youth formula program provides an array of job training and other

services through what are known as local workforce investment boards (WIBs). Job Corps

provides training in a number of trades at centers where youth reside.

Another program, YouthBuild, engages youth in educational services and job training that focus

on the construction trades. Separately, WIA’s pilot and demonstration authority has been used to

carry out the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program, which provides job training and other

services to juvenile and adult offenders. Finally, the Youth Opportunity Grant (YOG) program,

which was funded until FY2003, was targeted to youth who lived in select high-poverty

communities.

This report accompanies two reports—CRS Report R40930, Vulnerable Youth: Issues in the

Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act; and CRS Report R40830, Vulnerable Youth:

Federal Funding for Summer Job Training and Employment.

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Context............................................................................................................................................. 1

History of Federal Youth Employment and Job Training Programs ................................................ 4

Depression Era........................................................................................................................... 4

War on Poverty Programs.......................................................................................................... 5

Expanding Youth Programs ....................................................................................................... 5

CETA and YEDPA .............................................................................................................. 6

JTPA.................................................................................................................................... 7

STWOA............................................................................................................................... 7

WIA..................................................................................................................................... 8

Overview of Youth Programs Authorized Under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act............. 8

Coordination.............................................................................................................................. 9

Funding.................................................................................................................................... 10

FY2013 Request................................................................................................................ 12

FY2012 and FY2011 Funding—Workforce Innovation Fund .......................................... 13

ARRA Funding.................................................................................................................. 13

Timing of Funds ................................................................................................................ 14

Youth Activities Formula Grant Program ...................................................................................... 14

Overview and Purpose............................................................................................................. 14

Program Structure.................................................................................................................... 15

Youth Councils .................................................................................................................. 16

Elements of Local Programs ............................................................................................. 17

Participants .............................................................................................................................. 19

Older and Out-of-School Youth ........................................................................................ 19

Allocations............................................................................................................................... 20

Performance............................................................................................................................. 21

Job Corps ....................................................................................................................................... 23

Overview and Purpose............................................................................................................. 23

Program Structure.................................................................................................................... 23

Services ............................................................................................................................. 24

Participants .............................................................................................................................. 25

Allocations............................................................................................................................... 26

Performance............................................................................................................................. 26

YouthBuild..................................................................................................................................... 27

Overview and Purpose............................................................................................................. 27

Program Structure.................................................................................................................... 27

Participants .............................................................................................................................. 29

Allocations............................................................................................................................... 29

Performance............................................................................................................................. 29

Reintegration of Ex-Offenders....................................................................................................... 29

Overview and Purpose............................................................................................................. 29

Program Structure.................................................................................................................... 30

Education........................................................................................................................... 31

Apprenticeships, Alternative Education, and Expansion Grants....................................... 31

Reentry .............................................................................................................................. 32

Community Service/Restorative Justice............................................................................ 33

Participants .............................................................................................................................. 33

Allocations............................................................................................................................... 33

Performance............................................................................................................................. 34

Youth Opportunity Grants.............................................................................................................. 34

Overview and Purpose............................................................................................................. 34

Program Structure.................................................................................................................... 34

Participants .............................................................................................................................. 35

Allocations............................................................................................................................... 35

Performance Measures ............................................................................................................ 36

Tables

Table 1. Funding for DOL Youth Job Training and Employment Programs, Appropriations for FY2000-FY2012 and Proposed Funding for FY2013 .......... 11

Table 2. Elements of Youth Programs Funded by WIA Youth Activities Formula Grant Program ................................ 17

Table 3. Statutory and Common Measures for WIA Youth Programs ........................................... 22

Table 4. Eligible Activities Funded by YouthBuild, as Specified in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) ......................................................... 28

Table A-1. WIA Youth Activities State Allotments, PY2008-PY2011, Plus Funding Under  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) ............................ 37

Appendixes

Appendix A. Workforce Investment Act Funding for Youth Programs ......................................... 37

Appendix B. Definitions of Terms Used in WIA Youth Programs ................................................ 39

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 42

________________________________________________________________________

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.

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

________________________________________________________________________

Harvey Nash

CIO SURVEY 2012 [14 May 2012]

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/

Foreward

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/foreword.asp

Executive Summary

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/executive_summary.asp

[excerpt]

Women in IT

In this new section of the Harvey Nash CIO Survey the role of women in IT departments and the view of the CIO to gender challenges in technology are explored. The male to female ratio in IT leadership remains highly unrepresentative of the population at large – 93 percent of CIOs responding to the survey this year are male – this compares to 92 percent male in the survey population from 2010. Over a third of CIOs (35 percent) confirm there are no women in IT management roles in their organisation. For 46 percent of CIOs less than a quarter of their IT management roles are populated by women. The split of male to female workers is also significantly skewed in technical functions. Almost a quarter of CIOs (24 percent) have no women in their technical teams; for 45 percent of CIOs women only make up about one quarter of their technical team, while for 20 percent of CIOs half their technical team are women.

Non-technical roles such as business analysis and training do have more women represented in IT departments. Six percent of CIOs have non technical teams that are almost exclusively made up of women; 12 percent of CIOs have non technical teams with women in 75 percent of the roles; 35 percent of CIOs have up to half their non technical roles filled by women. Over half of CIOs (51 percent) think relationships between IT and the business improve by hiring more women, and 48 percent believe it enhances team cohesion and morale. However, the vast majority of CIOs think there is no impact on strategy (82 percent) and technical nous (86 percent) from hiring more women into IT.There is a massive 30 percent gap between women CIOs and their male counterparts regarding their view of women ‘getting the job done’ at various levels of the IT team.

However, both male and female CIOs recognise that in the current fast moving environment, where it is very clear that IT departments are increasingly focused on managing business relationships to pursue growth and less on sweating technology assets to deliver efficiency, increasing the proportion of women in the IT team will improve relationships between IT and the rest of the business.

Conclusions

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/conclusions.asp

Request for Copy

https://www.formstack.com/forms/?1076312-v84EOCraSO

Press Release 14 May 2012

CIOs indicate a return to growth and a change in priorities creates new skills challenges - Harvey Nash / TelecityGroup

http://media.harveynash.com/uk/mediacentre/2012/05/cios_indicate_a_return_to_grow.htm

London, 14th May 2012 - CIOs are more confident of securing technology budget increases than at any time in the last five years, according to the CIO Technology Survey 2012, conducted by Harvey Nash in association with TelecityGroup.

[excerpts

Key indicators of growth:

Increasing budgets: 44 percent of global CIOs saw a budget increase this year; the highest proportion since 2007, and a leap from 39 percent in 2011 and 28 percent in 2010.

Leap in demand for digital and mobile solutions: Digital media is firmly on the CIO's agenda with 58 percent of global CIOs actively promoting the development of solutions for smartphones and tablets such as iPads.

Demand for improving time-to-market: Of the areas of focus for CIOs, the category that grew the most in 2012 was Improving Time-to-Market, underlining the importance of growth and expansion planning.

Profit focus: More than half of CIOs (56 percent) say projects that make money from technology rather than save money are the priority.

Women in technology and skills shortage

Increased shortages in digital skills: Of all the categories of skills where shortages exist, mobile, security and social media displayed the greatest growth in shortage.

Overall skills shortage grows: Almost half (47 percent) of CIOs believe a skills shortage is preventing them from keeping up with the pace of change.

Gender balance within leadership in the technology sector: 93 percent of CIOs in the Survey are male, virtually unchanged from the 2005 Harvey Nash CIO survey.

Dearth in pipeline of female leadership talent: Over a third of those surveyed confirmed they have no females in technology leadership or management roles in their organisation, and over three-quarters (81 percent) have less than a quarter of management roles populated by women.

Software engineering not seen as attractive to female graduates: almost a quarter of CIOs (24 percent) have no women in their technical and development teams, suggesting more needs to be done to encourage women into IT at an early stage.

Outsourcing, role of CIO

Outsourcing plays a bigger role: almost half of the respondents (46 percent) plan to increase their spend on outsourcing this year. This compares to 45 percent in 2011, however, it is 10 percent up on 2010 figures (36 percent).

Multi sourcing in vogue: The use of multi sourcing will increase this year for 43 percent of CIOs, up from 39 percent last year.

CIO role is changing and increasing in importance: 52 percent of respondents now sit on their organisation's operational board, up from 50 percent in 2011 and 42 percent in 2010.

Strategic influence of the CIO continues to grow: over two thirds of respondents (68 percent) say the role of the CIO is becoming more strategic in 2012 and this is reflected in the dominance of the CEO as the most likely reporting line for the CIO.

________________________________________________________________________

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.