The Huffington Post, January 15, 2010, Friday

The Huffington Post

January 15, 2010, Friday

The Huffington Post

Unions Call for Science-Based Reductions in Greenhouse Gases

Over the past couple of years, the American labor movement has become an enthusiastic supporter of expanding "green jobs" that fight global warming. But policies to reduce carbon emissions to levels scientists say are safe have been a harder pill to swallow. Now, in a significant breakthrough, three significant unions have come out for the science-based emissions targets called for by the IPCC.

As 250 international union delegates arrived in Copenhagen for the global climate summit, a statement by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and a joint statement by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) called for a 25 to 40 percent reduction on 1990 levels for developed countries by 2020.

Sean Sweeney, director of the the Cornell University Global Labor Institute, who worked with the US labor delegation to be fully engaged in the UN process at the Copenhagen conference, said:

The statements are a clear sign that U.S. unions want to bring scientific necessity into alignment with job creation and green economic development. Many other unions are also moving in this direction. Engaging with unions overseas has also helped U.S. unions to see support for climate protection is also an act of international solidarity.

Unions and targets

Both union statements gave support to the more limited climate protection measures proposed by President Barack Obama on the eve of the Copenhagen summit. They also endorsed the climate legislation introduced by Senators Kerry and Boxer. But they argued that reductions to address the climate emergency must go substantially further. They noted that President Obama's commitment of 17 percent reduction on 2005 levels is only 4 percent below 1990 levels, which have been widely used as a benchmark in international scientific discussions.

The SEIU-LIUNA statement points out this means extreme, perhaps impossible reductions will be necessary later to meet the targets science says are necessary.

To reach an 80% reduction by 2050, the scientific consensus, with an only 4% reduction by 2020 means that there must be a 76% reduction over the last three decades or roughly 25% per decade. We find it difficult to justify backloading this obligation in a way that shifts the burden of reducing carbon emissions from ourselves to our children and grandchildren. Accordingly, we would support more aggressive carbon emission reduction policies.
It said that "an aggressive and science-based approach to emissions reductions" is "absolutely necessary" for "achieving a sustainable environment."

Until now few if any US unions and neither of the major labor federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, have supported specific emission reduction targets or even gone on record for the principle of making the reductions called for by scientific consensus. This is largely because only a few unions with a direct stake in the issue, notably in the energy and manufacturing sectors, have opposed such measures.

Their stand brings these three unions in line with the position of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), an organization that represents national union federations with membership of 175 million workers in 155 countries. It organized the international trade union delegation to the Copenhagen conference and strongly supported the IPCC targets.

An article published by the BNA reported that the AFL-CIO had issued its own position paper at the Poznan climate talks supporting ITUC concerns for "decent work, green jobs, industrial regeneration, border adjustment mechanisms and worker adjustment mechanisms" but failing to indicate support for the targets and timetables at the core of the ITUC position. The BNA reported that, "U.S. labor unions balked at backing ITUC's position, given fears that deep cuts would 'devastate' heavy manufacturing in the United States as well as the coal and steel industries."

Labor's traditional approach to climate policy was largely shaped by industries in the manufacturing and energy sectors. That is likely to change, however, as a result of the changing sectoral center of gravity with organized labor. According to a recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, barely one union member in ten works in manufacturing. An even smaller proportion work in fossil fuel production.

Today the overwhelming majority of union members are in services and the public sector. But they have barely begun to weigh in significantly on climate policy. If the new statements by the transport, service, and laborers unions are any indication, they are likely to favor stronger climate protection with more stringent emission reductions. This reflects not only the interest of their members in a livable world for their children, but the fact that the great majority of potential green jobs are in the building, transportation, public, and service sectors.

Why targets matter for green jobs

Both statements emphasized that emissions reduction targets were important to the green jobs agenda. According to the SEIU/LIUNA statement, "A clear science-based target will drive a massive increase in the generation of green jobs, pubic mass transit, renewable energy, green manufacturing, energy-efficient construction and building retrofits, as well as in other sectors."

The statement went on to describe strong targets as critical to provide incentives for creating green jobs. "The more ambitious the target, the stronger the political signal to private investors and innovators who wish to serve the green economy."

It also argued that absence of strong targets could have the opposite effect.

A weak target slows green job growth, serves as a drag on the global effort, and will not serve climate stability over the long term. Jobs that conserve energy, fight sprawl and congestion, and retool and re-equip our industries according to green and sustainable principles are the wave of the future for the US and with world.
The TWU statement adds that a science-based approach to emissions reductions will be good for our economy and for working families. "With the US suffering over 10 percent unemployment and falling living standards, we need to fulfill the promise of green jobs sooner, not later."

The statements called for a "just transition" to the green economy to provide full protections for workers negatively impacted by climate policies. The TWU statement notes that the transition to a low carbon economy must be pursued in a way that is "fair to workers and supportive of impacted communities." According to the SEIU/LIUNA statement, "Workers in energy intensive industries should not be asked to shoulder a disproportionate burden."

Why union positions matter

Union positions can make a big difference on climate legislation. Coal and manufacturing unions have played a significant role in provisions in current legislation that are favorable to their industries. CQ says AFL-CIO support is essential to passing any climate change bill; Jason Grumet, director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, says, "If you don't have organized labor, you can't get something through." Strong union support for science-based target could play a significant role in strengthening current legislation.

The US will also face an enormous number of climate related policy decisions in the near and more distant future, ranging from what provisions should be in international treaties to national policy on fuel efficiency standards to sidewalks and bicycle lanes for local streets. Organized labor can be a significant player in all of them. It can also play a big role in how those policies are actually implemented in industries and workplaces. And it can help educate its sixteen-and-a-half million members about what climate change means for them and their children and what has to be done about it.

The SEIU/LIUNA statement concludes,

Our nation stands at the threshold of a dramatic transformation toward a clean, green and sustainable economy. Ambitious reduction targets for 2020 and beyond can help drive this transformation.
The new union statements supporting science-based targets could be the start of a significant trend that could put organized labor in the forefront not only of the green jobs movement but also of the broader movement to protect the climate. Support for targets and strong policies to implement them will position labor as a progressive social force and a leading player in the emerging movement for sustainability. According to Joe Uehlein, former director of the AFL-CIO Center for Strategic Campaigns and a founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability:

This is an opportunity for all of labor to step up to the plate for what science says is necessary to protect the planet. That's what we have to do if we want our society to be sustainable. That isn't only good for the planet - it's good for labor.

Daily Finance, January 15, 2010, Friday

Daily Finance

January 15, 2010, Friday

Daily Finance

It's Bumper-to-Bumper Green Cars at Detroit Auto Show

Enthusiasts tracking new-model debuts at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit may have had trouble keeping up with all those using some form of all-electric or hybrid technology. Keen to show consumers and the federal government that they are earnest in efforts to raise gas mileage and reduce emissions, auto makers unveiled plans for dozens of new earth-friendlier models.

Take Toyota Motor (TM), for example. The Japanese auto maker unveiled plans to introduce plug-in hybrids, which can be recharged by plugging them into an external power source, as well as hydrogen fuel-cell and battery powered vehicles. Toyota said it has plans to sell a million hybrid vehicles a year around the world in the next few years, the majority of them in North America. It will introduce eight new models to achieve that goal.

European Design Influences

Small, eco-friendly cars with European design influences were the focus of this year's model previews, said Hyundai USA Vice President David Zuchowski. "Our industry is going to become more like the European industry in the next couple of years," he said, referring to that continent's fleet of vehicles that are smaller and more fuel efficient than those in the U.S.

Auto makers' efforts aren't simply altruistic. Rather, they are being driven by consumer demand for the latest in technology, and higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, says Art Wheaton, senior extension associate at Cornell University's ILR School. The new U.S. standard mandates that manufacturers achieve a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, compared to the current 27 mpg.

Hybrids can help car companies meet that new standard, Wheaton says, but it comes at a cost to consumers who choose to buy them. A prime example is Toyota's popular Prius, the gold standard in current hybrid technology, which costs $9,000 to $10,000 more than Toyota's similarly sized Corolla sedan. Consumers who buy a Prius rather than a Corolla aren't likely to recoup the higher initial purchase price through gas savings, he says.

Greener Than Thou

Still, shoppers who opt for a Prius do derive another benefit, the perception that they are concerned about the environment or "greener" than someone who buys a Corolla, Wheaton says.

Toyota isn't the only car maker with skin in the hybrid game. Ford Motor (F) already offers four hybrid vehicles, while Honda Motor (HMC) sells a hybrid version of its Civic sedan as well as its Insight hatchback. Then there's the CR-Z "mild" hybrid, which Honda debuted at the Detroit show. As a mild hybrid, the CR-Z gains only minimal improvements in gas mileage, with the electric engine largely contributing to increased performance. GM, meanwhile, sells eight hybrid vehicles, including sedans, SUVs and trucks.

Hyundai Motor's take on the hybrid theme, its Blue Will concept car, made its U.S. debut at the Detroit auto show. It features a plug-in drive train. Other companies, such as Nissan Motors, are forgoing the hybrid route altogether, focusing instead on all-electric vehicles, including the company's new Leaf.

Hydrogen Technology Overshadowed

Lost in the hype surrounding hybrids are the advances being made with hydrogen technology, promoted in recent years by General Motors as the future of automobiles. Mass adoption of hydrogen-powered vehicles is inhibited by several factors, not the least of which is the lack of publicly available hydrogen refueling stations, an expensive and complicated undertaking.

GM has since turned its attention to its Chevrolet Volt, a $40,000 compact hybrid vehicle that differs from other types in that the gasoline engine serves only to recharge the battery, not to propel the car.

Another option for car makers, of course, is diesel engines, which are popular in Europe, accounting for about half of all vehicle sales there. But sales in the U.S. have been limited, attributable in part to strict emission standards that prohibited the sale of diesel-powered passenger cars in California and other states until very recently. Newly available low-sulfur diesel fuel has allowed European car makers, such as Volkswagen and Mercedes, to sell diesel-powered cars in all 50 states, but just within the last two years.

Diesel's Lackluster Image

Diesel cars do have benefits over hybrids that include proven technology and the ability to achieve about the same level of fuel efficiency, Wheaton says. But they suffer a lackluster image among U.S. consumers, largely attributable to GM's disastrous effort to sell poorly designed diesel-fueled cars in the early 1980s. Yet another option are flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on either pure gasoline or a mix of ethanol and gasoline, known as E85.

Given the number of choices automakers face, it's no wonder Wheaton says the future engine technology appears "a complex mess." Everyone is trying to find the most effective way to meet the minimum fuel economy standard, he says, "and there's no one formula for success."

The Post Standard, January 10, 2010, Sunday

Copyright 2010 Post-Standard
All Rights Reserved
The Post Standard (Syracuse, NY)

January 10, 2010, Sunday

Taxpayers don't get to know what's in teacher contracts before they are approved

BODY:
The first tentative agreement between the Liverpool school district and its teachers' union came to the school board Nov. 16.

No copies of the contract were made public for residents to review before the meeting. At the meeting, no copies were available. In an unusual move, the board rejected the contract.

A week later, a new contract was brought to the board.

Again, no copies of the contract were made public before or at the meeting. At the meeting, the public was told it couldn't comment on the proposed contract. This time, the board approved the contract that sets teacher and staff pay for three years.

Liverpool isn't doing anything unusual -- school districts typically keep pay raises and entire contracts secret before they are presented to the school board. Nearly all contracts are quietly approved with little or no public review or input.

Negotiations between a district and union take place in secret as part of collective bargaining. That's the same for other public sector labor contracts, too.

But once there's a tentative pact, the proposed contracts should be made public, but that almost never happens, said Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government.

"The public has no opportunity to express a point of view," he said.

Altmar-Parish-Williamstown recently reached a tentative agreement on a four-year contract with its teachers and the union, but it hasn't been approved by the board yet. The district doesn't release any details of the tentative pact unless it's been approved by the board, said Superintendent Jerry Hudson.

To do that "would be a breach of good faith negotiations," he said. "It's not easy to reach an agreement with both parties now, and if we got the public involved, it would be hat much more cumbersome."

Because taxpayers are footing the bill for these costs, they need to have input, said Lise Bang-Jensen, senior policy analyst for the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a taxpayers' watchdog group.

"The public has the right to know what's in that contract before it's too late," she said. "Often, school districts would prefer the public not have the chance to criticize the contracts."

If proposed pay raises were made public before contracts are voted on, "I suspect the raises would probably be smaller," Bang-Jensen said. Shining the light on contracts might result in criticism and a backlash from taxpayers, which districts don't want, she said.

"The way they do it now, it's too late for the public to make any meaningful comments on the contracts before they've already been approved," she said.

Union and district officials disagree, saying until a proposed agreement is ratified by the employees and the district, it's still technically open for negotiation.

"If negotiations were public, what incentive would there be for either side to move even one inch for fear of being publicly criticized?" asked Richard Korn, speaking for the New York State United Teachers.

Korn said taxpayers have a voice through the school board members they elect to represent them in good faith during contract negotiations, and to open it up to the public could create "grand-standing and gridlock."

East Syracuse-Minoa School Board President Kevin Burke agrees.

"We're talking about a personnel agreement, and the negotiations aren't for public discussion," he said. "If they were, it would just create more waves. The board is elected to do what we feel is best for everybody."

Cornell University's Lee Adler, who teaches public sector collective bargaining and labor law, agrees that bargaining must be private, but not after the two sides have reached a tentative agreement.

"Citizens should have the right to ask questions or make comments as part of the ratification process," he said.

There are efforts to open the process to the public.

Assemblywoman Sandy Galef, D-Ossining, sponsored a bill in March that would require the proposed terms of a collective bargaining agreement be made public when it's sent to union members for approval or rejection. The bill also calls for copies to be posted on the school's Web site, in public libraries and in school district offices before the contract is approved by the district.

Elizabeth Doran can be reached at edoran@syracuse.com or 470-3012.

Contracts up next These districts are or soon will be in talks for contracts: Onondaga County: Fabius-Pompey, North Syracuse, West Genesee, Westhill Cayuga County: Auburn, Southern Cayuga Oswego County: Alt-mar-Parish-Williamstown*, Central Square, Mexico Madison County: Brookfield, Canastota, Cazenovia, Madison, Chittenango Cortland County: Cortland, Homer, Marathon *APW has a four-year tentative agreement in place; it is expected to go before the school board Jan. 28. Source: NYSUT, NYS Public Employee Relations Board, CNY school district

Impact of recession Here's a snapshot of what's happened since the recession hit more than a year ago. Cost of liv-ing nationally: Down 0.02 percent for the year ending October 2009. Weekly wages nationally: Down 1.4 percent for the year ending September 2009. Weekly private sector wages in CNY: Up 0.009 percent. Wages went from $750 in the second quarter of 2008 to $757 a week in the second quarter of 2009. Weekly private/public wages in CNY: Up 0.001 percent. Wages went from $767 in the second quarter of 2008 to $775 in the second quarter of 2009. Teachers' pay: Up 3.69 percent in the 10 contracts settled since the fall of 2008. Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, state Labor Department, school district contracts

Extras increase the pay The base pay for a Liverpool school teacher without a master's degree who's been teaching in the district for 10 years is $49,150. But no one earns that. That's because the contract -- like contracts in all Central New York districts -- calls for paying teachers extras that increase a teacher's pay. Here are some extras a 10-year teacher could make in Liverpool: $2,327 a year for a master's degree. (In New York, teachers must earn a master's after five years, so all teachers with 10 years should have a master's degree). $4,260 a year for the college course to get the master's degree. That's $142 each for 30 credit hours. $2,983 a year for getting tenure. This 10-year teacher would be making $58,720. A teacher could increase his or her salary more by doing extra work or being a coach or club adviser. If the teacher chaired a social studies department, for example, the teacher's annual salary would go up $2,450.

LOAD-DATE: January 13, 2010

Oklahoma State Regents, January 9, 2010, Saturday

Oklahoma State Regents

January 9, 2010, Saturday

Ron Ehrenberg was interviewed discussing the role that female provost, presidents and board of trustees play in diversifying the faculty across gender lines nationwide.

http://www.okhighered.org/college-connection/archives/CC-1-9-10.wma

Grist, January 7, 2010, Thursday

Grist

January 7, 2010, Thursday

Grist

Transportation bill could produce environmental and job benefits in 2010

As advocates for clean energy and good jobs evaluate opportunities to advance their issues in 2010—from a jobs bill that could include energy efficiency measures to a federal clean energy and climate bill—there is another oft-overlooked vehicle that advocates would be wise to consider.

This year, Congress will likely pass a national transportation bill—legislation that comes up only about once every six years—through which the nation could reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector and significantly curtail petroleum use, thereby reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The transportation bill also could deliver major economic benefits, including millions of new construction, operations and manufacturing jobs—just what the doctor ordered to fix what’s ailing the U.S. economy.

“Transportation is the fastest growing sector in terms of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jill Kubit, assistant director of the Cornell Global Labor Institute, which encourages labor unions to become actively engaged in climate policy. “But it’s often neglected in terms of the solutions side, so we feel a real need to engage unions and workers around this issue.”

The Global Labor Institute isn’t the only organization that is planning to engage groups in the upcoming transportation debate. The coalition Transportation for America was created in 2008 by Smart Growth America, Reconnecting America, and the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. T4America, as the coalition is called, now counts some 400 organizations that support its agenda to create “a new national transportation program that will take America into the 21st century by building a modernized infrastructure and healthy communities where people can live, work and play.”

“It’s astonished and gratified us the range of organizations that have realized a connection to transportation,” said David Goldberg, communications director at T4America. He listed AARP as being a T4America member that is concerned that the U.S. transportation landscape is unfriendly to aging Americans; the American Public Health Association as a member that is troubled by the health impacts of pollution from the transportation sector and the lack of physical activity that has resulted from our transportation infrastructure; and PolicyLink as a member that wants to provide poor communities with access to high quality and affordable transportation options.

Groups like Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are also part of the T4America coalition because of their focus on climate change. “If you’re talking about climate change, transportation is about a third of the emissions, and you’re not going to be able to put all new vehicles that run on cleaner fuels out there in time to deal with the problem. Liquid fuel is going to be the fuel source for a lot longer, but part of what we need to do is not drive so much,” Goldberg said.

The transportation bill is so far-ranging that it touches many aspects of our lives. It addresses highways, bridges, highway safety, public transportation, railroads and high-speed rail, among other transportation issues. It includes the repair of existing transportation infrastructure as well as the financing of new highway and transit capacity. It targets metropolitan areas as well as rural areas. It regulates not only the movement of people, but also the movement of goods.

Groups that seek reform of the transportation system also hope to address a wide diversity of issues through the transportation bill-climate change, health and safety, equity, smart growth and economic opportunity, among others. There is also a significant amount of money at stake, as well as the potential to create a large number of jobs. The last transportation bill was funded to the tune of $286 billion over six years; the current proposal by Minnesota Democrat James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, would increase that amount to $500 billion over six years, including $50 billion for high-speed rail. Rep. Oberstar testified in July that the bill will “create or sustain approximately six million family-wage jobs.”

Many economists consider the transportation sector to be rife with job creation potential. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (Transportation Investments and the Labor Market) found that a $250 billion investment in the U.S. transportation system would create more than 2.8 million direct and indirect jobs. The study also looked at the quality of the jobs that would be created by transportation investments and found that they were more likely to be unionized and less likely to require a college degree.

“Across the board, it’s a pretty dense industry when it comes to unionization,” said Ed Wytkind, president of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. “This means you have higher wages, better benefits and better training. You probably have good quality health care, and you’re more likely to have a pension.”

Although Wytkind’s organization does not represent workers in transportation manufacturing, he is very interested in the potential for increased transportation investment to create not only construction and operations jobs, but also domestic manufacturing jobs. “Most of our manufacturers are buying components and intellectual property from overseas. This [transportation bill] is a great opportunity to look at the next generation of locomotives and passenger rail cars and buses and make sure they’re not only more energy efficient, but that they also support American jobs,” Wytkind said.

Currently, most U.S. transportation funding comes from the gasoline tax, which has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation. At 18.3 cents per gallon, the federal tax has lost 33 percent of its purchasing power over the last 15 years, according to Oberstar. If more funds are to be invested in transportation to create the jobs and other benefits for which many groups are advocating, the gasoline tax will need to be increased or a new and sustainable source of funding will need to be identified. However, with the economy still in a state of recession, most politicians are loath to support any tax increases. This is a key reason why the transportation bill, which expired in September 2009, has yet to be taken up by Congress and may not be seriously considered until fall 2010.

Funding is not the only challenge for those who seek changes in the U.S. transportation system to address environmental, public health, equity and other critical issues. Many groups still differ on their priorities. For example, while most groups support increased transportation investment, there are divisions as to whether public transportation should be on a more equal footing with highways. There are also divisions between organizations that support fix-it-first policies that prioritize repair and maintenance work on roads over new road and bridge construction, and those which argue that new road construction is needed to address traffic congestion and other problems.

These issues will be discussed and debated throughout 2010 as Congress deliberates the transportation and jobs bills. In December, the Obama administration proposed that the jobs bill include a $50 billion infrastructure investment to go mainly toward highways, transit, rail and aviation. The House jobs bill, which was passed on December 16, included approximately $37 billion in transportation investments.

To the extent that these investments create well-paying jobs and move the country toward a cleaner and more sustainable transportation system, they represent progress. But the transportation bill is still the 800 pound gorilla. As T4America’s Goldberg put it, “By all rights, this [transportation bill] ought to be the best opportunity in a generation to create a bold new vision for our national transportation policy.”

A longer version of this article is available at www.apolloalliance.org.

PLANSPONSOR Magazine, January 7, 2010, Thursday

PLANSPONSOR Magazine

January 7, 2010, Thursday

PLANSPONSOR Magazine

Customers Lose in High Turnover Work Units

A Cornell University study has found a direct link between clients’ satisfaction levels and the number of new workers with whom customers have to contend.

Researchers doing the study for the Cornell University Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies found that operating units with a higher level of employee “churn” fall short in meeting clients’ needs.

“When turnover is low, the number of new hires in a work unit doesn’t really impact customers’ service quality perceptions,” the researchers declare in a study summary. “But when turnover is high, the number of newcomers is crucial – the more new workers in a group, the more unhappy customers are.”

The researchers concluded that:

The more new workers there were in a unit, the more problem­atic turnover was for the unit, and the more unhappy custom­ers were.

A high level of turnover in larger work units caused service to deteriorate more than in smaller work units. Concentrating newcomers in large units increases the harm to the units’ efficiency and effectiveness.

Group cohesiveness did not seem to matter in this setting. No matter how well- or poorly-bonded the work group, a high turnover rate meant that customers reported less than high-quality service.

“In order for service firms to succeed, HR practitioners must better understand employee churn and find ways to minimize its disruption of customer service,” the researchers wrote. “It’s possible to manage turnover in ways that keep good service flowing to customers. Uncovering the truth about turnover is key.”

Authoring the Cornell study were John Hausknecht, assistant professor of human resources, Cornell University ILR School (Indus­trial and Labor Relations); Charlie Trevor, associate professor of management and human resources, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Michael Howard, chief executive officer, Em­ployee Insights.

The study focused on 75 work units and data from 5,631 employee surveys and 59,602 customer surveys.

The study summary is available here. The full study can be ordered here.
Fred Schneyereditors@plansponsor.com

Law & Health Weekly, January 9, 2010, Saturday

Copyright 2010 Law & Health Weekly via LawRx.com via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net
Law & Health Weekly

January 9, 2010, Saturday

HEADLINE: HALLORAN CONSULTING GROUP; Halloran Consulting Group Further Expands Executive Team, Offering New Services to Clients

BODY:
Halloran Consulting Group (HCG), a firm that specializes in clinical development strategy and services for estab-lished and emerging life sciences companies, announced the continued expansion of its senior executive team, with the addition of Vicky Hines, Ph.D., as a Principal Consultant, and Walter Houseman, as a Consultant. The addition of these two senior executives enhances Halloran's service offering, further increasing the firm's ability to provide strategic planning and program management to early-stage biotech and pharmaceutical companies, as well as its expertise in operational and infrastructure management (see also Halloran Consulting Group).

"Both Vicky and Walter bring complementary areas of expertise in their prior life science careers and we are very pleased to bring them into our firm to augment our existing strengths across the product development space," said Lau-rie Halloran, President and CEO of HCG. "Over the past year our firm has doubled in size, which underscores the value our clients continue to receive as they seek more novel ways of creating and executing development strategies that are seamlessly integrated with senior level quality and regulatory services, leveraging technology whenever possible to save both time and money."

"With steep regulatory challenges, and a difficult fiscal environment, there is no room for error in either design or conduct," Halloran continued. "Companies are recognizing the importance of strong clinical development programs from the earliest stages, realizing that the old high-cost methods for getting there won't work anymore."

Prior to joining Halloran Consulting, Dr. Hines was Therapeutic Director at Celtic Pharma - a healthcare-focused private equity fund - where she had strategic and operational oversight of oncology and vaccines programs. At Celtic, Dr. Hines led virtual global project teams, making key sourcing decisions and selecting and managing external vendors for different projects. This experience gave her a strong understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with virtual development teams. Prior to her work at Celtic, Dr. Hines worked at Chiron Corporation for 15 years, where she held positions in regulatory affairs, toxicology, program management, strategic planning, European commercial operations, and as the Senior Director of Project Management. Vicky earned a B.A. in Biology from Carleton College and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Chicago.

Before joining HCG, Mr. Houseman was the Vice President of Operations for CRF Health, Inc. CRF provides electronic diaries to investigator sites and patients in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets. Prior to his opera-tions role, Walter held positions at Perceptive Informatics, CRF Box Ltd., and Clinsoft Corporation in program and project management, where he evaluated various clinical development functions, including clinical protocols, resourc-ing, quality standards, global vendors, clinical trial management systems, adverse event safety software, web-based recruitment tools, and wireless clinical trial applications. Walter received a B.S. in Labor Relations from Cornell University. About Halloran Consulting Group Halloran is a management consulting firm specializing in the biopharmaceutical arena, providing strategic oversight and tactical implementation of clinical, quality and regulatory services. Halloran partners with companies that develop and bring life-saving therapies to the people who need them by helping them evaluate, hire and manage their CRO, while building organizational infrastructure, regulatory and quality frameworks. Halloran applies wisdom from hundreds of clinical and regulatory submissions to ensure capital efficient drug devel-opment, and improves the process by developing and implementing innovative strategies that will make drug develop-ment more cost-effective and will help deliver more life-saving therapies to a broader reach of patients, faster.

For more information, visit www.hallorancg.com or call us at 781-209-5440.

Keywords: Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Chemicals, Chemistry, Conservation, Consulting, Cornell University, Ecology, Environment, Finance, Health, Investing, Investment, Mutual Funds, Oncology, Other Professional Services, Other Science, Pharmaceutical, Pharmaceuticals, Private Equity, Private Equity Fund, Professional Services, Science, Software, Technology, Therapy, Toxicology, Treatment, Vaccines, Halloran Consulting Group.

This article was prepared by Law & Health Weekly editors from staff and other reports. Copyright 2010, Law & Health Weekly via NewsRx.com.

LOAD-DATE: December 31, 2009

Inside Higher Ed, January 4, 2010, Monday

Inside Higher Ed

January 4, 2010, Monday

Inside Higher Ed

Proof That Mentoring Matters

Many discussions of efforts to diversify the faculty ranks include concerns about whether female and minority academics need mentors. Advocates for female and minority professors say that white men are more likely to learn informally from senior (male) colleagues about how to get ahead. Some skeptics dismiss these ideas, and suggest that the best scholarship gets published and the best academics rise through the ranks.

Academics who have had good mentors have over the years praised their impact, and those without them have talked about falling behind. But is there proof that mentoring matters in launching faculty careers -- and that it could make a difference for faculty diversity?

A study presented in Atlanta Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association may be the first truly random sample to try to test the mentor impact -- and the study may demonstrate that mentoring truly does matter.

The research tracks the careers of women who participated (and some who were turned away from participating) in a mentoring program sponsored by the AEA's Committee on the Status of Women in the Economic Profession. The mentoring program connects junior female economists with senior faculty mentors for a two-day workshop held in conjunction with the economics association's annual meeting. The workshops feature discussions about publishing and grant writing and offer critiques of a draft article or grant proposal. In the study, applicants to the program were randomly selected for participation or to be in the control group, and were told that there was not enough room in the program for all applicants.

Cohorts from 2004 and 2006 have now been tracked for five years and three years, respectively, and the study compares the female economists who received the mentoring and those who didn't -- women who were seen as otherwise having a similar range of abilities. Before participating (or not participating) in the study, those in the group receiving mentoring and in the control group showed no differences in the numbers of grants received or publications.

Comparing the participants and non-participants in the years since the mentoring took place, the study found significant gains for those who received mentoring in three key factors: total number of publications, total number of publications in "top tier" journals, and total number of federal grants won.

The study says that not enough time has passed to see if these achievements translate into higher rates of tenure and promotion. But the paper notes that, historically, the tenure rates for female economists have lagged those of men, and that publication and grants are key to receiving tenure. Some research, the paper says, suggests that mentoring may be particularly important in closing the gender gap in tenure rates. This research suggests that female economists lack the "research networks" of their male counterparts, and notes that even though co-authorship is common in the discipline, female economists are less likely to write pieces with colleagues than are men (even after controlling for publication rates).

While the paper says that more work will need to be done to see if the type of mentoring provided in the study will help more women gain tenure and stay in academe, the results are "encouraging" that such efforts can have a real impact.

The authors of the paper are: Francine D. Blau, the Frances Perkins Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations and Labor Economics at Cornell University; Janet M. Currie, the Sami Mnaymneh Professor of Economics at Columbia University; Rachel T.A. Croson, professor of economics at the University of Texas at Dallas; and Donna K. Ginther, professor of economics at the University of Kansas,

— Scott Jaschik

Providence Journal-Bulletin, December 26, 2009, Saturday

Copyright 2009 Providence Publications, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island)

December 26, 2009, Saturday

HEADLINE: A no-holds-barred war against union organizing

BYLINE: KATE BRONFENBRENNER

BODY:
ITHACA, N.Y.
Angel Warner, an employee at a Rite Aid distribution center, sat next to me recently in a congressional briefing room and described what happened when she and her fellow workers tried to form a union in their California workplace. She talked about the surveillance, constant threats and harassment they endured; how she and other workers were repeatedly taken aside and interrogated, one on one, about how they planned to vote; how two co-workers were fired; and how the rest lived in fear that any day they, too, might get a pink slip. The union filed numerous charges of unfair labor practices and eventually won the organizing election. But three years after the campaign began, Warner and her fellow Rite Aid workers still don t have a contract.

Like most U.S. companies, Rite Aid takes full advantage of current labor law to try to keep workers from exercis-ing their full rights to organize and collectively bargain under the National Labor Relations Act. Far from an aberration, such behavior by U.S. companies during union organizing campaigns has become routine, and our nation s labor laws neither protect workers rights nor provide disincentives for employers to stop disregarding those rights.

Late last month I published a study, No Holds Barred, that was presented at the hearing at which Angel spoke. I looked at a random sample of more than 1,000 union elections over a five-year period to determine the parameters of employer behavior during union-representation elections in the private sector and the limitations of the labor-law system established to regulate that behavior.

In 34 percent of the elections I studied, companies fired employees for union activity. In 57 percent of elections, employers threatened to shut down all or part of their facilities, and in 47 percent, employers threatened to cut wages and benefits.

In 63 percent of campaigns, supervisors met with workers one on one and interrogated them about their union ac-tivity or whether they or others were supporting the union. In 54 percent of the elections, supervisors used these one-on-ones to threaten individual workers.

The bottom line is that there has been a steady decline of workers rights in the past several decades. Colleagues and I have examined this issue in a series of studies over the past two decades. My new data show that employers are more than twice as likely as they were in the 1990s to use 10 or more tactics including threats and firings to thwart workers organizing efforts, and they are more likely to use more punitive and aggressive tactics such as interrogations, discharges and threats of plant closings, while shifting away from softer tactics such as social events, promises of improvement and employee-involvement programs.

For the vast majority of workers who want to join unions today, the right to organize and bargain collectively free from coercion, intimidation and retaliation is at best a promise indefinitely deferred. In election campaigns overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, it is now standard practice for companies to subject workers to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance and retaliation for union activity.

The failure of the system to defend workers rights in a timely manner multiplies the obstacles workers face when seeking union representation, creating delays that favor employers. Employers appeal a high percentage of the cases to the NLRB, and in the most egregious instances, the employer can count on a final decision being held up by three to five years.

A key aspect of proposed labor-law reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, concerns revisions to the rules sur-rounding arbitration of the first contract. My findings show that this provision may be among the most crucial of the legislation. Fifty-two percent of workers who form a union are still without a contract a year after they win an election, I found, and 37 percent remain without a contract two years after the election. For employers, labor law provides yet another means to delay unionization.

It doesn t have to be this way. My survey data from the public-sector portray an atmosphere in which workers may organize free from the kind of coercion, intimidation and retaliation that so taints the election process in the private sector. Most of the states in the public-sector sample have laws allowing workers to choose a union through card check or voluntary recognition. And more than a third of public-sector workers in the United States are members of unions. Unless Congress passes serious labor-law reform with real penalties, only a small fraction of the workers who seek union representation will succeed. If recent trends continue, there will no longer be a functioning legal mechanism to effectively protect the right of private-sector workers to organize and collectively bargain. Our country cannot afford to make workers defer their rights and aspirations for union representation any longer.

NOTES: Kate Bronfenbrenner is director of labor education research at Cornell University s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Kate Bronfenbrenner is director of labor education research at Cornell University s School of Industri-al and Labor Relations.

LOAD-DATE: December 26, 2009

Buffalo News, December 20, 2009, Sunday

Copyright 2009 The Buffalo News
All Rights Reserved
Buffalo News (New York)

December 20, 2009, Sunday

HEADLINE: Community groups push officials on drafting living-wage legislation

BODY:
Living-wage legislation is among 10 priorities of a coalition of community groups seeking the support of local pub-lic officials.

Members of the Partnership for the Public Good, a local think tank, met Wednesday in Frank E. Merriweather Jr. Library on Jefferson Avenue to share the 2010 community agenda -- 10 issues members believe state and local governments can and ought to do to revitalize the region.

"We believe that we have sustained ways to address [the problems] collectively," said Lou Jean Fleron of Cornell University ILR and a member of the partnership.

"And we also believe that by bringing more and more citizens into this process, we believe we will be able to im-prove government, make it more accountable and improve our democracy," she added.

Among its recommendations is that the city and the Buffalo Public Schools address the plight of low-wage workers by implementing living-wage policies. Merle Showers of the Network of Religious Communities noted that more than 1,000 such workers are already benefiting from the living-wage ordinance passed by the Buffalo Common Council, including emergency workers for Rural/Metro Medical Services and school crossing guards.

"The reason that is important is that [the workers] went from about $7.90 an hour to $11 an hour, and that differ-ence has spread throughout the whole community. And because of that, probably, a lot of other people have gotten jobs, because there is now money circulating in the community that wasn't there before," said Showers.

Showers anticipates that another 1,000 workers could benefit from living-wage legislation.

The partnership would like to see an agreement with the developers of the Canal Side project on five issues.

They include language on living-wage jobs; maintaining environmentally friendly buildings and operations; pro-moting locally owned businesses; providing mixed-income housing; and building and site designs that are appropriate to the location on the city's waterfront.

Other issues the partnership seeks to tackle include improving conditions at the Erie County Holding Center, main-taining health care services in disadvantaged communities and cleaning up the Tonawanda Coke plant in the Town of Tonawanda.

The rest of its agenda is available at www.ppgbuffalo.org.
e-mail: citydesk@buffnews.com

LOAD-DATE: December 21, 2009

The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2009, Saturday

The Wall Street Journal

December 19, 2009, Saturday

The Wall Street Journal

A Gradual Exit
'Phased' retirements are becoming more popular. Here's how to do it right.

By ANNE TERGESEN
If all had gone according to plan, Annis and Ernie Fuller would be retired by now.

But after consulting with their financial planner late last year, the Gurnee, Ill., couple decided to stay on the payroll—and take a "phased retirement" instead.

The Journal Report
See the complete Encore report.
Under the program rolled out in 2008 by the Fullers' employer, Abbott Laboratories, the couple "gets the best of both worlds," says Ms. Fuller, age 57. By remaining on the job (the Fullers now hope to retire in 2011), they continue to earn income, accrue pension and Social Security benefits, and funnel savings into their beaten-down investment accounts. But in return for taking a 10% reduction in pay, they also receive five extra weeks of vacation each year, boosting the total to nine weeks.

"It's going to be hard to use all those days," jokes Ms. Fuller, who says she and her husband, 57, plan to travel and spend time with grandchildren.

Amid the economic turmoil, interest in phased retirement is on the rise. For employees, these programs offer a way to ease rather than plunge into retirement, which can pay psychological and financial dividends. Many employers, like Abbott, are introducing phased-retirement programs to prepare for mass retirements among baby boomers, an eventuality the recession has only delayed. The goal: to persuade near-retirees to stick around long enough to teach colleagues how to do their jobs.

Other employers are implementing these programs to pare payroll costs while minimizing layoffs. In a survey released in July, the nonprofit Families and Work Institute in New York found that 77% of 400 employers contacted had taken steps to reduce their labor and operation costs during the previous 12 months. Of those, 7% said they were relying on phased-retirement programs.

Clemson University in Clemson, S.C., is one such employer. Hit by a $38 million drop in state funding since July 1, the school has unveiled several cost-cutting measures, including a phased-retirement program for faculty meeting certain service and age requirements, says Michelle Piekutowski, associate chief human-resources officer. So far, a handful have expressed interest.

"The budget cuts were one motivator" for adopting the program, Ms. Piekutowski says. But so was the fact that "some employees who are ready to retire now, with the economy the way it is, want to keep working."

If you're interested in phased retirement, the first step is to ask your employer whether it's possible to work something out. Only 6% of employers have a formal phased-retirement policy, according to a 2009 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management in Alexandria, Va. (Even then, most require employees to obtain a supervisor's approval.)

But many more employers, some 45%, offer these arrangements to select employees on an informal basis, according to Hewitt Associates, a consulting firm in Lincolnshire, Ill. Since human-resources departments usually don't publicize these opportunities, "employees may not even know phased retirement is a possibility," says Jamie Hale, a Dallas-based practice leader at Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a benefits consulting firm.

Before entering into such an arrangement, consider how flexible it is. Like many employers, Abbott imposes no deadline by which phased retirees must leave the payroll. It also allows those who obtain a manager's approval to return to full-time status, says Tim Richmond, divisional vice president of compensation and benefits. In contrast, under a program American Express Co. introduced last year, phased retirees are generally expected to leave the company within a year, says Kerrie Peraino, the company's chief diversity officer. Clemson has a three-year deadline.

Clarify how your role will change. Will you, like Annis Fuller, shift some responsibilities to colleagues? Or will you move to a position suited to working fewer hours? "You have to strike a balance between being able to phase down and making sure you don't get marginalized," says Alan Glickstein, a senior consultant at Watson Wyatt.

It's also important to research the impact of phased retirement on your benefits, including those—like Social Security or a pension—you may be counting on to supplement your reduced salary. In a worst-case scenario, those who cut back on their hours may wind up with permanently reduced pension benefits or bare-bones health insurance. Here's what you need to know before you make a decision.

Social Security Benefits
If you are 62 or older, you may decide to tap your Social Security benefits to make up for the smaller paycheck you'll earn while phasing into retirement. But be aware that Social Security penalizes those who continue to earn an income before reaching full-retirement age. (For those born between 1943 and 1954, that age is 66.)

In 2009 and 2010, for every $2 above $14,160 a Social Security recipient younger than full retirement age earns, the Social Security Administration reduces his or her benefits by $1. In the year in which the recipient reaches full retirement age, Uncle Sam deducts $1 in benefits for every $3 above $37,680.

Starting in the month in which beneficiaries reach full retirement age, the deductions cease. Benefits are then raised by an amount designed to compensate the recipient—over an average life expectancy—for what was withheld earlier.

401(k) BENEFITS
Another way to supplement a reduced paycheck is to take withdrawals from a tax-deferred retirement account, such as a 401(k). The good news: Many employers allow those on the payroll to tap these accounts. (Of course, they have to pay ordinary income tax on withdrawals and, if younger than 59½, there is usually a 10% penalty, as well.)

But if you work fewer hours, your contributions are likely to decline. "If you cut back your hours, but keep the percent of salary you contribute the same, then you will save fewer dollars, and your employer's match will fall too," says Mr. Glickstein of Watson Wyatt.

Once an employee's hours fall below a certain threshold—often, 1,000 hours per year—some 401(k) plans eliminate matching contributions or prevent participation altogether. Check your plan's "summary plan description," available through your human-resources department.

Pension Benefits
Yet another way to supplement a phased-retirement salary is to begin taking your pension benefit early. In 2006, Congress enacted legislation that gives those still on the payroll access to their pension checks starting at age 62—instead of the "normal retirement age" many plans define as 65. But employers don't have to amend their plans to make this possible, says Chantel Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps an even bigger concern is whether a decision to phase down will permanently reduce your pension benefit. In calculating benefits, most employer-sponsored plans weigh factors including an employee's salary and years of service. Problems can arise when, instead of looking at an employee's highest three or five years of pay, a plan considers earnings in the "years just before retirement," says Robert Hutchens, a professor of economics at Cornell University. In such a situation, an older person who, for example, "chooses to work half time at half pay could lose as much as half of all future pension benefits," he says.

Ask your employer whether you'll continue to accrue pension benefits. Under federal law, pension plans are required to give employees who work 1,000 hours or more per year credit for that year of service. But some allow employees who work fewer hours to earn credits.

To encourage employees to retire early, many companies provide incentives in the form of subsidies that increase pension payouts. However, if you draw a pension while still on the payroll, you may not receive such a subsidy, says David Certner, legislative policy director at AARP.

Other Benefits
Employers often provide part-timers with less generous benefits. As a result, "you want to go through all of your benefits and understand how phased retirement will affect each one," says Mr. Glickstein.

In some instances, you may lose access to benefits. In a survey of 950 employers Prof. Hutchens published in 2003, 34% of those that allow phased retirement said phased retirees receive no health insurance. Some other employers defray a smaller portion of the cost of benefits for phased retirees.

At Noblis Inc., a Falls Church, Va., nonprofit that provides scientific consulting services, employees receive life- and accidental-death-and-dismemberment insurance that amounts to two times salary. But since phased retirees often work fewer hours, their salaries are lower—and so is their coverage.

— Ms. Tergesen is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in New York. She can be reached at encore@wsj.com.

Plain Dealer, December 18, 2009, Friday

Copyright 2009 Plain Dealer Publishing Co.
All Rights Reserved
Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH)

December 18, 2009, Friday


HEADLINE: As unemployment rises, debate rages over accuracy of official jobless rate

BYLINE: Olivera Perkins, Plain Dealer Reporter

BODY:
John Schoeb may not show up in the official unemployment rate even though he hasn't held a full-time job since he was laid off as an accountant in June 2008.

It has to do with how the government calculates the official unemployment rate. In order to make it into this jobless rate, an unemployed person must be able to answer "yes" to three questions: Are you without work? Are you available for work? Have you actively looked for work?

As unemployment has risen, debate about whether the official rate is accurate has raged from support groups for laid-off workers to academic circles. Criticism will flare again today when the state announces the latest rate for Ohio.

Deciding on a better way isn't clear-cut, however.

Despite common misperceptions, the jobless figure isn't based on unemployment claims, but the Current Population Survey, completed by 60,000 households nationally. The Labor Department releases weekly reports about unemployment claims. Both the monthly federal and Ohio unemployment rate reports also include the number of jobs the economy has shed or gained.

Among the questions on the household survey are those asking if any family member meets the official unemployment conditions.

"For people who are unemployed, there is a both a factual matter - they don't have a job - and a judgmental matter: How attached do they feel to the labor force and the activity of finding a job?" said John Abowd, professor of industrial and labor relations at Cornell University and an expert on labor market statistics.

"The survey attempts to quantify that degree of attachment and alienation in a sequence of questions that were designed to distinguish between people who aren't employed in a job and aren't in any way actively seeking a job, but perhaps engaged in some other equally meaningful activity like going to school."

Alternative rates offer broader look at jobless

For Schoeb of North Ridgeville, the answers to those questions change frequently. Sometimes he gets temporary accountant's work. During soccer season in late summer and early fall, he often works as a referee. Sometimes he has to take a brief break from networking, combing Web sites for job postings and sending out resumes.

"You kind of exhaust everything after awhile," Schoeb said. "It is just doing the same things over and over again. Seeing the same job postings, going to the same meetings and talking to the same people who didn't have any more advice than they did last week."

All of these answers would exclude Schoeb from the official unemployment rate - the widely reported monthly fig-ure often used as a gauge of the economy's health. Living on a fraction of what he made before being laid off, and still collecting jobless benefits, Schoeb considers himself very much unemployed.

While Schoeb some months may not qualify for the official unemployment rate, he could show up in one of the five alternative jobless rates the federal government releases monthly. With the exception of two, these alternative rates offer broader definitions of unemployment compared with the official rate. The more inclusive rates include measures such as "discouraged workers," or those who have suspended job searches because they believe positions aren't available, and people who are working part time, but want a full-time job.

Analyst: Jobless rate really more than 31%

The broadest rate, which the federal Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics calls U-6, also includes "mar-ginally attached workers," those who want to work but aren't looking for reasons other than being discouraged.

When the broadest rate is used, the unemployment rate swells. For example, November's official U.S. unemploy-ment rate, which the Labor Department calls U-3, was 10 percent. The U-6 was 17.2 percent.

The department releases state data only in quarterly averages, and the latest such data for Ohio mirror the national trend. The average official unemployment rate in Ohio from October 2008 through September 2009 was 9.2 percent. The U-6 rate was 16.1 percent.

So does the broader measure give a more accurate reading of unemployment?

Yes, says John Russo, co-director of the Center for Working-Class Studies and coordinator of the Labor Studies Program at Youngstown State University's Williamson College of Business Administration. His gripe is that the measure should be even broader. He has come up with something he calls the de-facto unemployment rate.

By Russo's calculations, the current unemployment rate is really more than 31 percent. In addition to U-6 measures, it takes into account such factors as increases in early retirement, the prison population and government programs for low-income people.

"You have to look at people who are out of the labor market for other reasons," he said. "Maybe they are in the military because there are no jobs. We know that there is an increase in a lot of government aid because people have lost their jobs. If you talk to prison reform people, they will tell you there are a lot people who are in prison who wouldn't be in prison if it were not for the recession."

Different rates, but they tell same story

Russo said it is not a question of whether the official rate or the more inclusive rates are more accurate. "It is a question of what do we infer about the general state of the economy from different measures of the state of the labor market."

Hirschel Kasper, an economics professor at Oberlin College, agrees.

"They do measure different things, but they do move in the same direction roughly at the same time," he said. "When you look at the changes from one period to the next, they tell the same story."

"I like to think of unemployment statistical data like a thermometer," Kasper said. "Is it going up or is it going down? Is public policy having any effect?"

Russo said he agrees - up to a point.

"That makes a lot of sense, if you assume we are in a typical business cycle, but what if we're not?" he asked.

Russo said he bases this assumption in part on what occurred in Youngstown in the early 1980s, the last time Ohio and the United States experienced consistent double digit unemployment. Ohio's official unemployment rate peaked at 13.8 percent in January 1983. The U.S. rate peaked at 10.8 in December 1982.

A Youngstown State study at the time showed that the local jobless rate was considerably higher than what gov-ernment statistics actually showed, Russo said.

George Zeller, an economic research analyst in Cleveland, said finding the real unemployment rate isn't a debate worth having because the jobless rate is unreliable - especially at the state and local levels. The national survey doesn't include enough Ohioans, Zeller said.

Instead he likes to focus on the job loss figures.

"We've lost 14 percent of the jobs in Cuyahoga County since 2000," he said. "To say that the jobless rate is 10 per-cent is misleading."

Also, Zeller said the definition and interpretation of the official unemployment rate periodically changes, making it difficult to even compare jobless figures from the early 1980s with current ones.

"Both Democratic and Republican administrations have changed the unemployment definition to make the official number look lower," he said - although the Obama administration has not revised the definition.

No matter how close statistics come to revealing the real rate of unemployment, they can't reveal the anguished stories of laid-off workers who have been unable to find full-time employment.

Joseph Wollet of Strongsville was laid off in August 2008 as a project manager. He is part of The Plain Dealer's Help Wanted series, which is following dozens of unemployed Northeast Ohioans as they seek work.

In April, Wollet got a contract consulting assignment that was supposed to last several months, but it ended after a few weeks because the company declared bankruptcy. Since then, he has been working as a part-time sales consultant, earning about 20 percent of what he made working full time.

"The challenge is to keep myself busy and off the unemployment rolls, yet still have money to pay all the bills," he said.

Keith Seide II of Aurora was laid off as an information technology director two years ago. Since then, he has worked primarily on a contract basis.

"I would still consider myself as someone who would want to be a salaried, W-2 employee," he said.

Seide said he can't find a job as an IT director, despite even having applied overseas. He recently started AnyKey IT Solutions LLC, hoping that the entrepreneurial venture will help restore what he used to make.

While the experts debate the real unemployment rate, Seide has his own definition:

"When I reach the point of making the same or more of what I made as a salaried employee, I'll consider myself successfully employed."

Computer Assisted Reporting Editor Rich Exner contributed to this story. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: oper-kins@plaind.com, 216-999-4868
BOX
Calculated rates
A look at Ohio's average unemployment rate from October 2008 through September 2009 shows how the jobless rate changes based on measures are used:
4.3%: Ohio's labor force unemployed for at least 15 weeks.
9.2%: The official unemployment rate, which the federal government calls U-3. Based on the number of people looking for work.
9.6%: When discouraged workers are added.
10.6%: Including unemployed, discouraged and those who want work but aren't looking for reasons other than be-ing discouraged.
16.1%: The broadest measure of unemployment, including people who are working parttime for economic reasons. Known as U-6.
Ohio ranks 14th in the country for the traditional unemployment rate and 13th for this last measure.
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

LOAD-DATE: December 19, 2009

Workforce Management, December 18, 2009, Friday

Workforce Management

December 18, 2009, Friday

Workforce Management

A Skeptical View of Engagement

Employee engagement is a priority for many HR leaders these days. But some observers warn that fixating on ever-higher engagement survey scores may backfire.
By Ed Frauenheim

Increasing employee engagement is a top priority for many HR leaders these days. But some observers warn that fixating on ever-higher engagement survey scores is wrongheaded and may backfire.

Organizations that measure engagement—including Gallup, Towers Perrin and the Corporate Executive Board—have different surveys and formulas for calculating employee commitment. And their findings about engagement overall vary.

Adam Zuckerman, a consultant at Towers Perrin, says it makes little sense to try to pin down a “normal” level of engagement, given variations by geography, industry and job function. The key, he argues, is for firms to raise scores.

“More of it is always good,” he says.

Critics, though, question sweeping claims about engagement. John Haggerty, managing director for executive education at the Center for Advanced Human Resources Studies at Cornell University, argues that engagement surveys that result in a numeric score often amount to hype.

“Too many companies conduct the survey, and then struggle to improve the metric, without any idea of whether their more ‘engaged employees’ are behaving in ways that foster or promote better customer service or higher productivity,” he says.

Companies focus too exclusively on employee engagement at the expense of other key people matters, says Laurie Bassi, head of consulting firm McBassi and Co. The quality of work processes—how well tasks are divided and carried out—is often overlooked in engagement assessments, Bassi says. She says the same is true for hiring practices, which play a big role in the culture of an organization and its business outcomes. “It is of course necessary to have engaged employees,” she says. “It is, however, not sufficient.”

Bassi adds that it is dangerous to apply a one-size-fits-all model of engagement and its causes to organizations. For example, it may turn out that engaging the employees of two similar retail banks requires very different strategies, she says. One bank may need to focus on the quality of feedback from supervisors, while the other—which is more mature in its performance management practices—should concentrate on professional development opportunities to fire up workers.

Theresa Welbourne, a business consultant and researcher at the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California, says improving the engagement scores of a certain class of employees is actually counterproductive. There are “entitled” workers who are satisfied on the job and feel very valued but perform poorly, she says. Increasing their engagement scores through traditional means such as extra rewards will work against them changing their work habits, she argues. “All you’re doing is reinforcing the status quo,” she says.

Welbourne’s consulting firm, eePulse, offers a version of an engagement survey that also measures employees’ level of “urgency,” which she says is a crucial factor in performance.

Dave Logan, co-author of Tribal Leadership, a book about successful work cultures, says companies set their sights too low by obsessing over engagement. At the most advanced organizations, employees feel “alive,” Logan says.

“Engagement is a bit of a remedial variable,” he says. “There are some cultures that go way beyond engagement.”

Workforce Management Online, December 2009 -- Register Now!

Buffalo Business First, December 17, 2009, Thursday

Buffalo Business First

December 17, 2009, Thursday

Buffalo Business First

UAW may elevate 2 in WNY

Joe Ashton and Scott Adams, leaders in the United Auto Workers’ Amherst-based Region 9, have been nominated for new upper-echelon UAW posts.

According to sources, the 61-year-old Ashton, who has been Region 9 director since 2006, was nominated at a national union caucus to become a vice president, working out of the UAW’s international office in Detroit.

Adams, 56 years old and Region 9’s assistant director for the past year, was nominated at a regional caucus to succeed Ashton as regional director, the same sources said.

With Ron Gettelfinger saying that he will retire in June, an exodus of other officers had been expected to create other leadership openings.

Region 9 encompasses Western and Central New York, New Jersey, and most of Pennsylvania.

Neither Ashton nor Adams would confirm the reports that they are in line for new positions with the union, which at it’s height in 1979 had 1.5 million members. Current membership is estimated at less than half a million.

Bob King, now a UAW vice president, reportedly is the preferred candidate to succeed Gettelfinger.

The appointments are subject to a vote at the UAW convention set for June 2010, but candidates backed by the union’s leadership traditionally sail through that process without serious opposition.

King, a soft-spoken Army veteran has headed negotiations with Ford which he joined in 1970, has been an advocate of the policies pursued by Gettelfinger over the past four years. They included concessions to the U.S. automaker at a time of deepening financial problems in the industry and plummeting union membership.

The post-Gettelfinger era will be particularly challenging for the new wave of top union leaders, the experts say.

At the Region 9 level, Adams — reportedly a close friend of King’s — and his counterparts elsewhere will have to concentrate on major tasks like rebuilding the union, say industry experts Arthur Wheaton in Buffalo and Kristin Dziczek in Ann Arbor, Mich.

“When the new leaders take control, we might see some different more creative approaches to the union’s main problem, which is declining membership,” said Dziczek, a research analyst with the Center for Automotive Research.

“Declining membership means declining power. How to reverse that is one thing they will be trying to accomplish,” she said.

Wheaton, with Cornell University’s School of Labor and Industrial Relations, praised Adams, who joined the union in 1972, the same year he went to work at Ford Motor Co.’s Woodlawn stamping plant.

“Scott is a terrific resource for UAW Region 9,” he said. “He was instrumental in keeping the Ford stamping plant in Western New York (and) was also generous in his time and expertise in helping keep Perry’s Ice Cream, a UAW-organized company, profitable with improved quality and productivity.

“He is also working hard to diversify the membership of the UAW to include casino workers and other service industry workers,” he said.

Under past and present union leadership, Region 9 is seen as being “much more cooperative and innovative in labor-management relations,” said Wheaton, director of the Cornell school’s Western New York labor and environmental programs.