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

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Selected Characteristics of Private and Public Sector Workers

Gerald Mayer,  Analyst in Labor Policy

March 21, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41897.pdf

[full-text, 36 pages]

Summary

An issue for Congress and state and local governments is whether the pay and benefits of public

workers are comparable to those of workers in the private sector. In addition, among the ways to

reduce budget deficits, policy makers are considering the pay and benefits of public sector

employees.

The number of people employed in both the private and public sectors has increased steadily as

the U.S. economy has grown. However, after increasing to 19.2% of total employment in 1975,

the percentage of all jobs that are in the public sector fell to 15.7% in 1999. In 2013, public sector

jobs accounted for 16.0% of total employment.

The recession that officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 affected

employment in both the private and public sectors. From 2007 to 2010, the number of jobs in the

private sector fell by an estimated 7.9 million, while the number of jobs in the public sector

increased by almost 272,000. Conversely, from 2010 to 2013, private sector employment grew by

approximately 6.7 million jobs, while public sector employment fell by about 626,000 jobs.

Reflecting the effects of the 2007-2009 recession on the budgets of state and local governments,

from 2010 to 2013, public sector employment as a share of total employment fell from 17.3% to

16.0%.

Among all full-time and part-time workers ages 16 and over, the number of workers covered by a

collective bargaining agreement has fallen in both the private and public sectors. The decline has

been greater in the private sector. In 2009, for the first time, a majority of workers who were

covered by a collective bargaining agreement were employed in the public sector (8.7 million

workers in the public sector, compared to 8.2 million private sector workers). By 2013, the

situation had reversed; a slight majority of workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement

were employed in the private sector (8.1 million private sector workers, compared to 7.9 million

public sector workers). In the federal government, except for the Postal Service and some smaller

agencies, employees do not bargain over wages.

Among workers ages 18 to 64 who work full-time, differences in characteristics that may affect

the relative pay and benefits of private and public sector workers include the following:

• Age. Reflecting the aging of the U.S. labor force, workers in both the private and

public sectors have become older. Nevertheless, employees in the public sector

are older than private sector workers. In 2013, 51.7% of public sector workers

were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 42.4% of full-time private

sector workers. Federal workers are older than employees of state and local

governments. In 2013, 56.7% of federal workers were between the ages of 45 and

64, compared to 49.7% of state employees and 52.1% of employees of local

governments. Workers who have more years of work experience generally earn

more than workers with less experience.

• Gender. Reflecting the increased participation of women in the labor force, the

share of jobs held by women has increased in both the private and public sectors.

In 2013, women held almost three-fifths (57.7%) of full-time jobs in state and

local governments. By contrast, women held approximately two-fifths of full-time jobs

in the federal government and in the privated sector (42.2% and 41.7%, respectively).

• Education. On average, public sector employees have more years of education

than private sector workers. In 2013, 53.6% of workers in the public sector had a

bachelor’s, advanced, or professional degree, compared to 34.9% of private

sector workers. Generally, workers with more years of education earn more than

workers with less years of education.

• Occupation. A larger share of public sector than private sector workers are

employed in “management, professional, and related occupations.” In 2013,

56.2% of public sector workers and 37.8% of private sector workers were

employed in these occupations. In part, more public sector workers were

employed in these occupations because 25.7% of all public sector workers were

employed in “education, training, and library” occupations, compared to 2.3% of

all private sector workers. Workers in management and professional occupations

generally earn more than workers in other occupations. However, comparisons of

the compensation of private and public sector workers that use broad

occupational categories may miss differences between detailed occupations.

Many detailed occupations are concentrated in either the private or public

sectors. Nevertheless, many detailed occupations may require similar skills.

• Union coverage. Although the number of workers covered by a collective

bargaining agreement is greater in the private sector than in the public sector, the

percentage of workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement is greater in

the public sector than in the private sector.

• Metropolitan area. Private sector workers are more likely than federal workers to

live in major metropolitan areas (i.e., areas with 5 million or more people)

Contents

Trends in Private and Public Sector Employment ........................................................................... 2

The Number and Percent of Workers Covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement ............ 5

Individual, Occupational, and Employer Characteristics of Private and Public Sector  Workers ..................... 7

Age ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Gender ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Education ................................................................................................................................. 11

Occupation ............................................................................................................................... 14

Major Occupations ............................................................................................................ 14

Union Coverage by Major Occupation ............................................................................. 15

Detailed Occupations ........................................................................................................ 17

Metropolitan Area .................................................................................................................... 17

Figures

Figure 1. Private and Public Sector Employment, 1955 to 2013 ..................................................... 2

Figure 2. Public Sector Employment as a Share of Total Employment, 1955 to 2013 .................... 3

Figure 3. Public Sector Employment, by Level of Government, 1955 to 2013 ............................... 4

Figure 4. Public Sector Employment, by Level of Government, as a Share of Total Employment, 1955 to 2013 ................................................................................................. 4

Figure 5. Percent of Workers Covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement, 1983-2013 ........... 6

Figure 6. Percent of Full-Time Workers Who Are Between the Ages of 45 and 64, 1976 to 2013 .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 7. Percent of Full-Time Workers Who Are Female, 1976 to 2013 ..................................... 10

Figure 8. Percent of Full-Time Workers with a Bachelor’s Degree, Private and Public Sectors, 1976 to 2013 ................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 9. Percent of Full-Time Workers with an Advanced or Professional Degree, Private and Public Sectors, 1976 to 2013 ................................................................................... 13

Figure 10. Percent of Full-Time Workers with a Bachelor’s, Advanced, or Professional Degree, by Level of Government, 1988 to 2013 ........................................................................ 14

Figure 11. Percent of Full-Time Employees Who Live in Metropolitan Areas With Populations of 1 Million or More or 5 Million or More, 2013 ................................................... 18

Tables

Table 1. The Percent of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers Ages 18 to 64 Employed by Occupation and the Percent of Those Workers Who Are Covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement, 2013 ............ 16

Table A-1. The Number of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers Ages 18 to 64 Employed by Occupation and the Number of Workers Covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement by Occupation, 2013 ........ 20

Table A-2. Wage and Salary Occupations Common to Both the Private and Public Sectors, by Total Number Employed, 2013 .................................. 22

Table A-3. Wage and Salary Occupations More Common in the Private Sector, by Number Employed in the Private Sector, 2013 .............................. 25

Table A-4. Wage and Salary Occupations More Common in the Public Sector, by the Number Employed in the Public Sector, 2013 ...................................... 27

Table A-5. Values for the Education Variable in the Current Population Survey (CPS), 1976 to 2013 ................................................. 30

Appendixes

Appendix. Detailed Data and Description of Data Source and Methodology ............................... 19

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 31

________________________________________________________________________

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)

Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Budget and Trust Fund Issues

Katelin P. Isaacs, Analyst in Income Security

March 24, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30023.pdf

[full-text, 19 pages]

Summary

Most of the civilian federal workforce is covered by one of two retirement systems: (1) the Civil

Service Retirement System (CSRS) for individuals hired before 1984 or (2) the Federal

Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) for individuals hired in 1984 or later. FERS annuities are

fully funded by the sum of employee and employer contributions and interest earned by the

Treasury bonds held by the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF). The federal

government makes supplemental payments into the CSRDF on behalf of employees covered by

the CSRS because employee and agency contributions and interest earnings do not meet the full

cost of the benefits earned by employees covered by that system.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimated that in FY2014, obligations from the

CSRDF would total $80.0 billion, of which $79.4 billion will represent annuity payments to

retirees and survivors. Other outlays consist of refunds, payments to estates, and administrative

expenses. Obligations from the fund are projected to increase by 3.4% to $82.7 billion in

FY2015, of which $82.1 billion will represent annuity payments. OPM estimated that receipts to

the CSRDF from all sources would be $95.3 billion in FY2014 and $98.5 billion in FY2015. The

year-end balance of the CSRDF was projected to increase from $848.5 billion at the end of

FY2014 to $861.8 billion at the end of FY2015.

The total annual income of the CSRDF will increase from $94.8 billion in FY2012 to an

estimated $158.8 billion in FY2025 and to $1.1 trillion in FY2090. The total expenses of the fund

are projected to rise more slowly, increasing from $73.9 billion in FY2012 to an estimated $115.0

billion in FY2025 and to $715.8 billion in FY2090. Consequently, the assets held by the CSRDF

also are projected to increase steadily, rising from $829.1 billion in FY2012 to an estimated $1.3

trillion in FY2025 and $13.7 trillion in FY2090. Expenditures from the CSRDF currently are

about 38% as large as federal expenditures for the salaries and wages paid to federal employees.

Pension expenditures are projected to decline relative to the government’s wage and salary

expenses, beginning around FY2020. By FY2090, the expenditures of the CSRDF are estimated

to be only about 30% as large as the government’s expenditures for wage and salary payments to

employees.

Because CSRS retirement benefits have never been fully funded by employer and employee

contributions, the CSRDF has an unfunded liability. The unfunded liability was $789.9 billion in

FY2012. According to actuarial estimates, the unfunded liability of the CSRDF will continue to

rise until about FY2025, when it will peak at $855.9 billion. From that point onward, the

unfunded liability will steadily decline and is projected to turn into a surplus of $29.5 billion by

FY2090. Actuarial estimates indicate that the unfunded liability of the CSRS does not pose a

threat to the solvency of the trust fund. Unlike the Social Security trust fund, there is no point

over the next 80 years at which the assets of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund are

projected to run out.

Contents

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

Fundamentals of Pension Plan Financing ........................................................................................ 1

Pre-funding of Pension Benefits in the Private Sector .............................................................. 2

Pre-funding of Federal Employee Pension Benefits .................................................................. 3

Investment of Trust Fund Assets ............................................................................................... 3

Financing Retirement Annuities for Federal Employees ................................................................. 4

Employee Contributions ............................................................................................................ 4

Employer Contributions ............................................................................................................ 5

Operation of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund ...................................................... 6

Financial Status of the Civil Service Retirement Fund .................................................................... 7

The Short-Term Picture ............................................................................................................. 7

The Long-Term Picture ............................................................................................................. 8

The Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in the Federal Budget .................................... 10

Civil Service Retirement: Funding and Accounting Issues ........................................................... 12

Accounting for Pension Costs Under CSRS and FERS .......................................................... 12

Why Are CSRS Revenues Less Than the Present Value of Benefits? ..................................... 13

Accounting Issues Raised by the Way CSRS Benefits Are Financed ..................................... 14

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Tables

Table 1. Receipts and Obligations of the Civil Service Retirement Fund, FY2013-2015 ............... 8

Table 2. Projected Income and Expenses of the Civil Service Retirement Fund ............................. 9

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 16

________________________________________________________________________

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)

Worker Participation in Employer-Sponsored Pensions: A Fact Sheet

John J. Topoleski, Analyst in Income Security

March 26, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43439.pdf

[full-text, 6 pages]

This fact sheet provides data on the percentage of American workers who have access to and who participate in employer-sponsored pension plans. The data are from the National  Compensation Survey (NCS), which is conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).1

The NCS provides data on occupational earnings and the availability of employee benefits among U.S. workers.

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)

QUALITY OF LIFE IN EUROPE: FAMILIES IN THE ECONOMIC CRISIS [27 March 2014]

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1389.htm

or

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2013/89/en/4/EF1389EN.pdf

[full-text, 80 pages]

CONTENTS

Executive summary 7

Introduction 9

Aim and objectives of study 10

Families with children in the economic crisis 11

Conceptual framework 11

Chapter 1: Family types and structures in Europe 19

Different family types across the EU 20

Distribution of work in households 22

Chapter 2: Standards of living in European families 27

Economic strain 28

Household debt 30

Housing insecurity 30

Deprivation 31

Chapter 3: Work and work–life balance 35

Working hours and work preferences 36

Work–life conflict 38

Access to childcare services 40

Chapter 4: Subjective and mental well-being 43

Life satisfaction and happiness 44

Income and life satisfaction 45

Optimism about the future 46

Mental well-being 46

Chapter 5: Social exclusion 49

Wellbeing and family status 51

Chapter 6: Conclusions 53

Main findings 54

Policy pointers 56

Bibliography 58

Annex 1: Methodology 60

Annex 2: Selection of country groups 61

Annex 3: Additional tables 67

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- FEBRUARY 2014 [28 March 2014]

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

or

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

[full-text, 21 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

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

Regional and state unemployment rates were generally little changed in February.

Twenty-nine states had unemployment rate decreases from January, 10 states had

increases, and 11 states and the District of Columbia had no change, the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Forty-nine states and the District

of Columbia had unemployment rate decreases from a year earlier and one state

had no change. The national jobless rate, 6.7 percent, was little changed from

January, but was 1.0 percentage point lower than in February 2013.

In February 2014, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 33 states and decreased

in 17 states and the District of Columbia. The largest over-the-month increases in

employment occurred in California (+58,800), Texas (+37,600), and Florida (+33,400).

The largest over-the-month decrease in employment occurred in North Carolina

(-11,300), followed by Wisconsin (-9,500) and Georgia (-5,800). The largest over-

the-month percentage increase in employment occurred in North Dakota (+1.3 percent),

followed by West Virginia (+0.6 percent) and Delaware, Idaho, and New Hampshire

(+0.5 percent each). The largest over-the-month percentage decline in employment

occurred in Alaska (-0.7 percent), followed by Vermont (-0.5 percent) and Hawaii

(-0.4 percent). Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 46 states and the

District of Columbia and decreased in 4 states. The largest over-the-year percentage

increase occurred in North Dakota (+4.1 percent), followed by Nevada (+3.6 percent)

and Colorado, Florida, and Texas (+2.8 percent each). The largest over-the-year

percentage decreases in employment occurred in Kentucky (-0.3 percent), New Mexico

(-0.2 percent), and Alaska (-0.1 percent).

Regional Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)

The West continued to have the highest regional unemployment rate in February, 7.2

percent, while the South had the lowest rate, 6.1 percent. The South had the only

statistically significant over-the-month unemployment rate change (-0.1 percentage

point). Over the year, all four regions had statistically significant rate declines:

the Northeast and South (-1.2 percentage points each), West (-1.1 points), and Midwest

(-0.8 point). (See table 1.)

Among the nine geographic divisions, the Pacific continued to have the highest

jobless rate, 7.6 percent in February, while the West North Central again had the

lowest rate, 5.0 percent. New England and the South Atlantic had statistically

significant over-the-month unemployment rate declines (-0.3 and -0.1 percentage

point, respectively), while the West North Central had a statistically significant

rate increase (+0.2 point). Eight divisions had significant unemployment rate changes

from a year earlier, all of which were declines. The largest of these declines were

in the South Atlantic (-1.5 percentage points) and Middle Atlantic (-1.4 points).

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

________________________________________________________________________

European Commission

Eurostat

HOURLY LABOUR COSTS

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

Data from March 2014. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database.

This article provides recent statistics on hourly labour costs in the European Union (EU).

In 2013 average hourly labour costs were estimated at EUR 23.7 in the EU-28 and at EUR 28.4 in the euro area (EA-17). However, this average masks significant differences between EU Member States, with hourly labour costs ranging between EUR 3.7 and EUR 40.1.

When comparing labour cost estimates in euro over time, it should be noted that data for those Member States outside the euro area are influenced by exchange rate movements.

________________________________________________________________________

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)

The Trend in Long-Term Unemployment and Characteristics of Workers Unemployed for Two Years or More

Gerald Mayer, Analyst in Labor Policy

March 24, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41559.pdf

[full-text, 28 pages]

Summary

One of the characteristics of the recession that officially began in the United States in December

2007 and ended in June 2009 was the unprecedented rise in long-term unemployment. The longterm

unemployed are often defined as workers who have been unemployed for more than six

months. But, many unemployed workers have been looking for work for more than a year or for

two years or more.

As the national unemployment rate increased during and after the 2007-2009 recession, so did the

unemployment rate for workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks. In April 2010, the

unemployment rate for workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks reached 4.5%, which was

the highest rate recorded since BLS began collecting data on long-term unemployment in 1948.

As the national unemployment rate has fallen, so has the unemployment rate for persons

unemployed for more than 26 weeks. From April 2010 to December 2013, the unemployment rate

for persons looking for work for more than six months fell from 4.5% to 2.5%. During the months

leading up to the 2007-2009 recession, the unemployment rate for persons unemployed for more

than six months was less than 1.0%.

In January 2011, the unemployment rate for workers who had been unemployed for more than a

year reached 2.3%. By December 2013, the rate had fallen to 1.4%. The unemployment rate for

workers unemployed for two years or more peaked in September 2011, at 1.3%. By December

2013, the rate had fallen to 0.8%. For both groups of long-term unemployed, the unemployment

rate in December 2013 was higher than immediately before the 2007-2009 recession.

An analysis of differences in the share of the unemployed who have been unemployed for two or

more years shows that in 2013:

• unemployed men were more likely than unemployed women to be out of work

for two years or more (12.8% compared to 11.9%);

• older workers were more likely than younger workers to be unemployed for two

years or more. While 8.2% of unemployed workers under the age of 35 had been

looking for work for two years or more, more than twice that percentage (18.2%)

of workers ages 45 and over had been out of work for two years or more.

• the percentage of unemployed workers with a high school degree who have been

out of work for two years or more (12.8%) was not statistically different from the

percentage of unemployed workers with a bachelor’s degree who have been out

of work for two years or more (13.5%);

• married unemployed workers were more likely than unemployed workers who

have never been married to be out of work for two years or more (12.9% and

10.9%, respectively); and

• unemployed black workers were more likely than unemployed white workers to

have been unemployed for two years or more (14.2% and 11.8%, respectively);

on the other hand, unemployed non-Hispanic workers were more likely than

unemployed Hispanic workers to have been unemployed for two years or more

(12.9% and 10.3%, respectively). Among workers unemployed for two years or

more, white workers were older than black workers and non-Hispanic workers

were older than Hispanic workers.

Long-term unemployment rates and the number of long-term unemployed have fallen since

peaking after the official end of the 2007-2009 recession. Monthly layoffs and discharges have

fallen below their pre-recession levels. The number of jobs has increased since the end of the

recession. But, the number of job openings is still below the monthly levels before the recession.

The increase in the number of jobs and drop in the number of layoffs and discharges since the end

of the recession may contribute to a reduction in the number of long-term unemployed. On the

other hand, the slower growth in job openings may slow the hiring of the long-term unemployed.

After a recession, as employers hire new workers, those who have been unemployed the longest

may be among the last to be hired.

An issue for Congress is whether to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation

(EUC08) program, which expired at the end of 2013. Another issue may be whether to enact

policies that could increase the demand for workers and, therefore, reduce the number of longterm

unemployed. Other issues may include whether to adopt policies that may provide greater

incentives for employers to hire the long-term employed, create incentives for the long-term

unemployed to accept new employment, or ensure that the long-term unemployed have the skills

that employers need.

Contents

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

Overview of Data and Methodology ......................................................................................... 1

The Trend in Long-Term Unemployment ........................................................................................ 2

Reliability of Estimates of the Long-Term Unemployed........................................................... 5

Will the Number of the Very Long-Term Unemployed Rise or Fall?........................................ 6

The Number of Jobs ............................................................................................................ 6

The Number of Unemployed ............................................................................................... 7

The Number of Layoffs and Discharges and the Number of Job Openings ........................ 8

Characteristics of the Very Long-Term Unemployed ...................................................................... 9

Gender ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Age .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Education ................................................................................................................................. 10

Marital Status ........................................................................................................................... 10

Race and Hispanic Origin ........................................................................................................ 11

Citizenship ............................................................................................................................... 11

Industry .................................................................................................................................... 12

Occupation ............................................................................................................................... 12

Figures

Figure 1. Unemployment Rates: Total Unemployed and Workers Unemployed for More than 26 Weeks, January 2007 to December 2013 ......................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Unemployment Rates: Unemployed for More than 52 or 78 Weeks or for Two Years or More, January 2007 to December 2013 ......................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Monthly Average Number of Unemployed Workers: Total and by Duration of Unemployment, 2013 ................................................................................................ 6

Figure 4. The Total Number of Unemployed and the Number of Workers Unemployed for More than 26 Weeks, January 2007 to December 2013 ............................................................... 7

Figure 5. The Number of Workers Unemployed for More than 52 or 78 Weeks or for Two Years or More, January 2007 to December 2013 ......................................................................... 8

Figure 6. The Monthly Number of Layoffs and Discharges and the Monthly Number of Job Openings, January 2007 to December 2013........................................................................... 9

Tables

Table A-1. Labor Force Characteristics of Persons 16 and Over, Comparison of Calendar Years 2007 and 2013 ................................................................................................................... 15

Table A-2. Number of Workers Unemployed by Duration of Unemployment, Averages of Monthly Data, 2013 .................................................................................................................... 15

Table A-3. Characteristics of the Unemployed, Averages of Monthly Data, 2013 ........................ 16

Appendixes

Appendix. Data and Methodology ................................................................................................. 13

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

SOVEREIGN BORROWING OUTLOOK 2014 [28 March 2014]

http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-markets/oecdsovereignborrowingoutlook.htm

or

http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?lang=EN&sf1=identifiers&st1=202014011p1

or

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/governance/oecd-sovereign-borrowing-outlook-2014_sov_b_outlk-2014-en#page1

[read online, 136 pages]

or

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/oecd-sovereign-borrowing-outlook-2014_sov_b_outlk-2014-en

This report provides updates of trends and developments associated with sovereign borrowing requirements and debt levels from the perspective of public debt managers for the OECD area and country groupings. This includes gross borrowing requirements, net borrowing requirements, central government marketable debt, funding strategies and instruments and distribution channels.

•Executive summary

•Sovereign borrowing overview

•Outlook for sovereign stress

•Central bank asset purchase programmes

•Challenges in primary and secondary markets

•The pros and cons of direct bidding

•Assessing the cost effectiveness of index-linked bond issuance - A methodological approach, illustrated using UK examples

•Methods and sources

Press Release 28 March 2014

Sovereign borrowing set to fall in 2014, says OECD

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/sovereign-borrowing-set-to-fall-in-2014.htm

28/03/2014 - Borrowing operations by OECD governments are set to decrease, as their borrowing needs continue to decline, according to a new OECD report. Net borrowing needs are projected to fall from USD 2.0 trillion in 2013 to USD 1.5 trillion in 2014, the lowest level since 2007.

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.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

GENDER EQUALITY AND ISLAM (video) [28 March 2014]

http://www.adb.org/news/videos/gender-equality-and-islam

Ratna Osman, Executive Director of the Malaysian group Sisters in Islam discusses the challenges associated with the struggle for gender equality in Muslim societies like Malaysia.

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

PWC

Report: How African companies manage their human talent [October 2013]

http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/report-how-african-companies-manage-their-human-talent/31499

A new report by professional services firm PwC, titled The Africa Business Agenda, takes a closer look at how African companies are attracting, managing and retaining talent.

THE AFRICA BUSINESS AGENDA 2013

http://www.pwc.com/ke/en/africa-business-agenda/index.jhtml

and

http://www.pwc.com/ke/en/assets/pdf/africa-business-agenda-2013.pdf

[full-text, 84 pages]

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

Census

2013 COUNTY/METRO & MICRO AREA POPULATION ESTIMATES [27 March 2014]

Press kit
Detailed tables
Ranking tables
American FactFinder
State contacts

Press Release 27 March 2014

Energy Boom Fuels Rapid Population Growth in Parts of Great Plains; Gulf Coast Also Has High Growth Areas, Says Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb14-51.html

Oil- and gas-rich areas in and near the Great Plains contained many of the fastest-growing areas in the U.S. last year, according to U.S. Census Bureau population estimates released today. Areas along and near the Gulf Coast were also home to several high-growth communities.

Of the nation's 10 fastest-growing metropolitan statistical areas in the year ending July 1, 2013, six were within or near the Great Plains, including Odessa, Texas; Midland, Texas; Fargo, N.D.-Minn.; Bismarck, N.D.; Casper, Wyo.; and Austin-Round Rock, Texas.

Micropolitan statistical areas, which contain an urban cluster of between 10,000 and 49,999 people, followed a similar pattern, with seven located in or adjacent to the Great Plains among the fastest-growing between 2012 and 2013. Williston, N.D., ranked first in growth (10.7 percent), followed by Dickinson, N.D. Andrews, Texas; Minot, N.D.; and two areas in western Oklahoma (Weatherford and Woodward) also made the top 10, as did Hobbs, N.M.

"The data released in today's population estimates report provide an important look at the fastest-growing counties and metro areas," said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker. "Coupled with yesterday's Economic Census report results, the Census Bureau's population report provides a bigger picture of why certain areas may be growing or shrinking, which is critical for business and government decision-making. The Commerce Department's 'Open for Business Agenda' supports making our data easier to access and understand, so that it can continue enabling startups, moving markets, protecting life and property, and powering both small and large businesses across the country."

"As the first results from the 2012 Economic Census revealed yesterday, mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction industries were the most rapidly growing part of our nation's economy over the last several years," Census Bureau Director John H. Thompson said. "A major reason was the energy boom on the Plains, which attracted job seekers from around the country. Combining data about America's people, places and economy gives businesses and government the information they need for good investment and policy decisions."

The nation's fastest-growing metro area between 2012 and 2013 was The Villages, Fla. Its population rose by 5.2 percent over the period. The Gulf Coast metro areas of Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, Ala., and Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla., also made the top 10 list.

U.S. metro areas with populations of 1 million or more in 2012 grew 1.0 percent, compared with 0.5 percent for those with populations of less than 250,000. The 1,335 counties not inside either a metro area or micro area had a collective population decline of 35,674 between 2012 and 2013, with more than six in 10 of these counties losing population. Overall, 51 percent of counties in the United States gained population between 2012 and 2013. In 68 percent of counties, births outnumbered deaths. Net migration (including both domestic and international migration) had a positive or neutral impact on population growth in 45 percent of counties.

Many counties in or near the Great Plains appear in the lists of fastest-growing counties. Williams, N.D.; Stark, N.D.; and Kendall, Texas, were all among the five fastest-growing counties with populations of 10,000 or more (Williams ranked first nationally). Meade, S.D., and Hays, Texas, also in the Great Plains, made the top 10 list as well. North Dakota counties appear many times in the top-five lists when looking at the fastest-growing counties within different total population size categories (such as those with fewer than 5,000 people, those with 5,000 to 9,999 people, those with 10,000 to 19,999 people, and so forth).

Among the 10 fastest-growing counties in the vicinity of the Gulf Coast were Sumter, Fla.; St. Bernard Parish, La.; and Fort Bend, Texas. See a series of Rankings.

Other highlights:

Metro areas

• Houston had the largest numeric increase between 2012 and 2013, gaining about 138,000 people.
• The nation's metro areas contained 269.9 million people in 2013, up about 2.3 million from 2012.
• Most metro areas (289 of 381) gained population between 2012 and 2013, with 92 losing population.
• Metro areas grew faster than the U.S. as a whole between 2012 and 2013 (0.9 percent compared with 0.7 percent).
• Of the 50 fastest-growing metro areas, net migration was the largest contributor to population growth in all but five. The exceptions (in which natural increase was the largest contributor) were Ogden-Clearfield, Utah; Provo-Orem, Utah; Dallas-Fort Worth; Washington, D.C.; and Salt Lake City.
• New York continued to be the most populous metro area, with 19.9 million residents on July 1, 2013, followed by Los Angeles and Chicago.
• Sierra Vista-Douglas, Ariz., had the largest rate of decline from 2012 to 2013 (-1.7 percent); Youngstown, Ohio, had the most sizable numeric loss (just under 3,000).

Micro Areas

• Dunn, N.C., had the largest numeric increase among all micro areas, growing by 2,855 people between 2012 and 2013. The other two micro areas gaining 2,500 or more people over the period were in North Dakota (Williston and Minot).
• The nation's micropolitan statistical areas contained 27.2 million people in 2013, up about 8,000 from 2012.
• All of the 10 fastest-growing micro areas between 2012 and 2013 were west of the Mississippi River.
• More than half of all U.S. micro areas (306 of 536) lost population between 2012 and 2013.
• Of the 10 fastest-growing micro areas, Vernal, Utah, was the only one in which natural increase was the largest contributor to population growth. Net domestic migration was the largest contributor in the other nine.
• Collectively, micro areas of 50,000 or more people in 2012 had a population gain between 2012 and 2013, while those with fewer than 50,000 in 2012 lost population over the period.

Counties

• Overall, with the exception of Williams, N.D., the growth rates among the fastest-growing counties have slowed somewhat during the last year.
• The fastest-growing county with 250,000 or more people in 2012 was Fort Bend, Texas, whose population increased by 4.2 percent between 2012 and 2013. Loudoun, Va., and Osceola, Fla., followed.
• Harris, Texas (Houston) again had the largest numeric population increase between July 1, 2012, and July 1, 2013, adding almost 83,000 people. Following Harris were Maricopa, Ariz. (Phoenix), which added 69,000; Los Angeles, Calif. (65,000); King, Wash. (Seattle), which added 37,000; and San Diego, Calif. (35,000).
• Los Angeles was the nation's most populous county on July 1, 2013, with its population surpassing 10 million. It was followed by Cook, Ill. (Chicago); Harris, Texas (Houston); Maricopa, Ariz. (Phoenix); and San Diego, Calif.
• The fastest-losing county (among those with 10,000 or more people) was Lassen, Calif., whose population declined by 4.4 percent.
• Los Angeles County, Calif., had the largest number of net international migrants between 2012 and 2013, at 39,000. It was followed by Miami-Dade County, Fla., with a net of 32,000 international migrants, and Queens County, N.Y., with a net of 24,000 international migrants.
• Eight of the top 10 counties where deaths exceeded births were in Florida.

Puerto Rico

• Nine municipios (which are similar to counties) experienced population growth between July 1, 2012, and July 1, 2013. Gurabo, whose population rose by 1.1 percent over the period, led the way, followed by Culebra and Toa Alta (0.4 percent each), Naguabo (0.3 percent) and Juncos (0.2 percent).
• Gurabo also experienced the largest numeric population increase among all municipios, gaining more than 500 people.
• Each of Puerto Rico's seven metro areas and five micro areas declined in population between 2012 and 2013. San Juan was Puerto Rico's most populous metro area in 2013.

In the coming months, the Census Bureau will release 2013 estimates of the total population of cities and towns, as well as national, state and county population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.

-X-

The Census Bureau develops county, metro and micro area population estimates by measuring population change since the most recent census. The Census Bureau uses births, deaths, administrative records and survey data to develop estimates of population. For more detail regarding the methodology, see <http://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/>.

The Office of Management and Budget's statistical area delineations (for metro and micro areas) are those issued by that agency in February 2013. Metro areas contain at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population and micro areas contain at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Both metro and micro areas consist of one or more whole counties or county equivalents. Some metro and micro area titles are abbreviated in the text of the news release. Full titles are shown in the 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.