Posted by marykeating on October 9, 2010 under Economic situation | 
The New York Times reported a dip in the number of jobs last month, led by a large loss of public jobs, particularly in local governments. The economic slide has affected tax revenues, and forced local governments, which ordinarily must balance their budgets, to economize. While the private sector did add jobs, the total was lower than hoped, and lower than the past two months. The article also notes that there was no budging the underemployment issue, in which people wanting full-time employment get only part-time hours.
The prolonged malaise of the economy has led to changes in American habits of consumption, some of which may become permanent. In addition, people are much more wary of leaving a job, even if not a good fit, since the next place may be less stable. Young people coming out of school are not finding the job prospects favorable, and may stay longer with Mom and Dad. This should keep social scientists busy for a long time, at least if they can find funding for their projects.
Posted by marykeating on September 21, 2010 under Age discrimination, Economic situation |
The New York Times reported the agony of many older workers who are struggling through the recession and massive layoffs. They fear that, though they planned to work until 65 or longer, they may actually never find another job.
With the economy adding fewer jobs than were shed in the last recession, and unemployment among young people also high, these fears are realistic. The article touches on the social impact on our culture as a whole if people too young to collect social security join the ranks of the homeless. Ironically, the stereotypical attitudes that often act against older applicants may become reality: they are not conversant with the latest business software, if they’ve been out of work for years. After a point, it’s no longer age discrimination, it’s simply hiring the most qualified workers.
Posted by marykeating on July 7, 2010 under Economic situation |
The news has been full of disappointment over a weak job recovery. While economists say the recession has been over for a year, tell that to the long-term unemployed people. Congress failed to renew their extended unemployment benefits before recessing.
A new study shows growth, though it’s weak. The research looks at hard numbers of available jobs, production, sales and unemployment claims, together with polls of how difficult job seekers considere the market. Based on their aggregation, the Conference Board Employment Trade Index concludes that progress is slow and steady, up 9.8% from a year ago.
Posted by marykeating on May 14, 2010 under Economic situation |
Governor Martin O’Malley reported that the state’s use of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds from the federal government resulted in positive job effects. Specifically, the Governor’s press release reports that 13,821 jobs were created or saved during the quarter ending March 31. Of those 13,000 jobs, only about 3,500 were paid for directly by the federal subsidy. The others were indirectly created (for example, jobs in industries supplying the federally created projects), or “induced,” meaning that the increased spending in the state saved or created a job in a restaurant or retail store. Eventually, of course, the economy has to hum along on its own steam, but the recovery dollars have held off a worse recession.
Posted by marykeating on May 7, 2010 under Economic situation, Unemployment compensation |
Maryland just became the first state to be entitled to receive $126,750,124 from the United States Department of Labor for unemployment insurance modernization incentive funds. Maryland was the first state to amend the law to become entitled to these funds. The state can use the money for benefits, to administer the program, or add employment services to the unemployed.
The federal program gave an incentive to states to assist part-time workers, people just entering the workforce, and those seeking to upgrade skills. Rather than simply providing job lists and benefits, for example, the funds will help people adjust to changing economies. Though Baltimore has been classified as part of the rust belt for some time, other types of jobs are going overseas, and Marylanders with certain skills find that their old skills are not wanted on this continent any longer. New training programs will help people figure out what skills are still in demand, and how to get them.
In the short term, of course, the money is a boon to a nearly bankrupt fund. As employers know, the rate of unemployment contributions has grown enormously, and this grant from the federal government may at least stop future increases in the tax rate.
Posted by marykeating on April 24, 2010 under Economic situation, Employment benefit issues |
Last week, Congress again extended the reach of the COBRA subsidy. As reported here before, the subsidy was part of the legislation designed to jump start the economy and ease the pain of the unemployed. Instead of paying the full freight of health insurance (plus a two percent administrative fee), the newly unemployed person could pay only 35% of the health insurance premium. The employer paid the rest, and could take an offset from the withholding tax owed to the federal government. In other words, the government pays for the majority of the premium.
This program has been extended not only to last for fifteen months, from the earlier nine, but also applies to those laid off in April or May of 2010. The subsidy is available for people who lose their jobs, not those who quit.
Posted by marykeating on March 30, 2010 under Economic situation |
March came in with a lion’s share of new legislation. On the 18th, the President signed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, with the happy acronym “HIRE” Act. Under this law all employers except public entities receive a credit from the United States against the FICA taxes owed by the employer for eligible newly hired employees. FICA taxes amount to 15.7% of an employee’s wages; the employer pays half, and the employee pays half, which is withheld from wages.
For the rest of this year, new hires who were unemployed for at least two months and are not replacements for other employees are eligible for the tax exemption. This provision is intended to prevent employers from firing an employee for no reason other than to hire someone eligible for the tax incentive. Employees who quit or are fired for cause.
Employers who keep the new hires for at least a year are eligible for $1,000 in a retention credit next year.
Posted by marykeating on February 18, 2010 under Unemployment compensation |
The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show some slight improvement in the rate of unemployment, with women enjoying the biggest job gains. Unemployment among women stands at 7.9%, and men at 10%. Teenage unemployment is higher, but of course teenage employees include those who have not finished high school and have no job experience.
I’m not going to want to look at these figures next month, because who knows how the snow afflicting the Eastern seaboard will mess with the trend. We already know that retail sales were lower (when malls are closed it’s hard to shop), and lots of people worked from home or not at all. But when this glitch is FINALLY over, we can hope that unemployment rates will continue to fall.
Posted by marykeating on February 7, 2010 under Employment at will, Unemployment compensation |
The plight of unemployed workers is inextricably linked to the high rate of foreclosures. These are not the stories of people who bought a house on credit that they could, under no fantasy, afford. Those are the extremes, and were never destined to work out.
These are the stories of ordinary people squeezed by daily expenses, but making it until they were brought down by a prolonged period of unemployment. They lose their houses, their credit is smashed, and when they finally get a new job, they remain insecure. A recent New York Times article details only three such examples, but they are surely worth pondering as we see whether the American mindset will permanently change. Our grandparents (or parents or great-grandparents) who lived through the Great Depression were more likely to believe in saving to the point of miserliness, buying nothing on credit, and putting by for retirement. Yet, as the thirties turned into the forties and fifties, the post-war economy soared, social security was available, good private pensions abounded, and people took more risks. Easier, perhaps, when a lifetime at one company was commonplace.
Now many well-educated, well-trained, hard-working people have lived the reality of employment at will. They may not be able to afford a house again, or be able to handle the commitment required. They know that loyalty to an employer is a one-way relationship. Will their experiences change our priorities and choices, or will our native optimism prevent us from redefining the American dream?
Posted by marykeating on January 7, 2010 under Discrimination in employment |
Yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released statistics showing that charges of job discrimination had risen. “93,277 workplace discrimination charges were filed with the federal agency nationwide during Fiscal Year (FY) 2009.” The federal government’s fiscal year ends on September 30. The highest categories were race, retaliation, and gender. The total claims are the second-highest on record, as were the total age discrimination charges.
Interpreting these statistics without more information involves making a lot of assumptions. The economy tanked and layoffs were rampant. So people who lost their jobs, and could not find another one, may be more likely to file a charge of discrimination. Cash-strapped companies may have been less likely to offer good severance packages. Severance agreements nearly always require the recipient to release discrimination claims.
But the existence of more unhappily unemployed people is only a part of the story. Was there more discrimination as well? When a company has to let go a portion of its workforce, what factors are used? In my interviews with potential clients, I am getting the sense that age is often figured in, though perhaps subconsciously. An employer trying to trim the workforce and decide which workers to retain may utilize biases in favor of the young, such as perceived energy level, ability to keep up with technology, youthful looks, and cheaper health insurance benefits. These same sorts of biases can eliminate women (they won’t work hard if they have or want families), blacks (they don’t fit in here, and we need “team players”), the disabled (they can’t handle the job if it gets harder), and so forth.
The unfortunate part is that proving discrimination in reductions in force is hard, unless a decisionmaker is candid about the reasons for cutting someone. Usually the proof is circumstantial, and the courts can be hostile to these claims. I don’t think that judges can relate to age discrimination, especially, since they are well insulated personally from this kind of bias.
