Workspace by Diane Stafford

Big jobless problem among teens

Teen-agers, in general, have a higher unemployment rate than the workforce at large. Chalk it up to lack of education, skills,and experience.

But add race to the causation factors. No population group has a worse jobless rate than African-American teens, and African-American male teens in particular. Historically and currently that's the case.

There are deep sociological and economic reasons for this, including lack of strong working role models in the home and community, lack of transportation to get to jobs, and high dropout rates from high school.

But, as reflected today in a full-page ad in USA Today, the Employment Policies Institute blames the legally required minimum wage. If there weren't a wage floor set by law, the research organization says, more African-American teens would be employed because employers could pay less and thus might hire them.

There's a philosophical and statistical tug of war between groups that dislike government-mandated wage floors and groups that advocate for required "livable" wages for workers. Both have studies to "prove" their points.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between the polarizing points. The least-skilled and least-able in any society at any time will have the most trouble getting hired. No employer worth running a business would intentionally hire someone unable to carry out the basic functions of the job.

Employers fill jobs when the amount of business requires it. The local job market sets competitive pay rates. Employers will hire the best people they can get for what they're paying. If the job market sucks and lots of able workers are looking for jobs and will take even the most entry-level positions, then, yes, the least-skilled will be passed over in favor of the better skilled.

But the mandated minimum wage isn't the prime reason why African-American unemployment is up. Even with a mandated wage floor, the free market says a lot more about what jobs pay and who's hired.

I wish the institute had put the cost of its full-page ad toward a job-training program for African-American teens rather than using a dislike of government-mandated wage floors as the hook to profess concern about that sectors' joblessness.  

Hugs and handshakes

We are dispending hugs and handshakes today at the newspaper. It's a scene that's been repeated countless times in organizations across industries.

Costs need to be cut. Labor is costly. Jobs are eliminated.

People are attached to those jobs, of course, and even the most bottom-line-oriented manager must recognize the human toll.

In my job as a career columnist, I speak once or sometimes twice a week to groups of laid-off workers in job transition or job-hunting meetings. I look in the attendees' eyes and see a mixture of rage and despair but also signs of hope and new possibilities.

It's hard to know what comes next for the displaced. Some will land better off than before. Some will not. What's clear at the moment, though, is that time for hugs and handshakes is essential.

That's what allows humanity to accompany business decisions that hurt.

Looking for work is a part-time job for some

It's no secret that Americans are spending hours online to hunt for jobs. What's not as well known in some workplaces is the amount of time employees are spending in a job hunt while at work.

One measure of that activity comes in a survey by Kelton Research, commissioned by RiseSmart. It found that nearly half of the job hunters who are searching online are spending between 1 and 3 hours a day on their Web searches.

About 1 in 10 of the 1,000 Americans, aged 18 and up, who were surveyed said they are spending four or more hours a day surfing the Web in their job hunts.

And it's not just the unemployed. The survey found that about 1 in 3 workers who are currently employed are spending at least an hour a day online in job searches.

The survey, conducted in April with controls that made its results statistically valid, concluded that a "job search is a job unto itself."

Young people, particularly new college graduates, are likely to spend the most time doing online job hunting, but -- because that's where the jobs are posted -- online searching is prevalent among all age groups.

While about half of the survey respondents said they had never hunted for work online, the survey purveyors indicted that the percentage is likely to increase, given the current tough job market.

The marriage perk for health care

June, a traditional big month for weddings, means that a lot of people are walking down the aisle.

Is it love? Or is it economic expediency?

A survey actually reveals that the latter may be a driving force toward the altar.

A Kaiser Family Foundation study found 7 percent of respondents saying they or someone in their households decided to get married to have access to their partner's health care benefits, or vice versa.

Presumably the love and devotion already was there, and it wasn't completely a matter of marrying for health insurance access or discount.

Still, 23 percent of the Kaiser respondents said they or a household member had made a job decision in the past year because of health benefits. And 28 percent said their households were having serious trouble paying for health care.

The saddest note of all: 3 percent said they'd declared personal bankruptcy in the past year because of health care expenses.

Clearly, the marriage perk won't solve all the problems with unaffordable health care. For a few lucky couples, though, it appears to be a start.

Sticker shock

Higher gasoline and food prices caused the consumer price index for Midwest consumers to jump nearly 1 percent last month.

Almost all of the increase was propelled by energy costs. Motor fuel -- as if the 3-foot high letters at the gas station didn't remind us enough -- rose about 10 percent in the month, and utility gas service prices in the region rose nearly 8 percent.

That means gasoline costs about 18 percent more for area consumers than it did a year ago, and utility gas costs about 21 percent more.

Meanwhile, average hourly and weekly earnings were up only 0.3 percent in May from April and are just about 3.5 percent higher than they were in May 2007.

Real average weekly earnings, reported today, fell by 0.4 percent from April to May. What looked like a 0.3 percent average hourly earnings increase was offset by a 0.7 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index.

Average weekly earnings rose 3.2 percent from May 2007 to May 2008, but after adjusted for inflation, the value of those earnings decreased by 1.2 percent.

That's why we're hearing groans at the pump and the supermarket checkout lanes. A larger share of "discretionary" income is going to essentials.

But will the corporate jets still fly?

Skyrocketing fuel costs are causing consumers to talk about "staycations" -- staying at home this summer instead of traveling.

The business world is coming to grips with similar cost containments. A new survey by NFI Research found 46 percent of senior executives and managers planning to decrease business travel.

Only 46 percent?!

Passing along higher business travel costs to the consumer can only go so far. At some point travel alternatives have to be adopted.

Yes, videoconferencing and teleconferencing are pale images of face-to-face contact. It's not surprising that execs -- those in sales, in particular -- want in-person meetings. Networking is best done in person, and a video handshake isn't the same as the human touch.

But there comes a point when the cost/benefit analysis tips in favor of cyber contact. One wonders if that tipping point wasn't actually reached years ago, but was ignored in favor of expense account travel -- "the way we've always done it."

Some business travel is essential; some is frou frou, and some is failure to think outside the box. Now the walls of the box are closing in.

Here's what you cost your boss

An average of $28.46 per hour worked.

The latest "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation," published today by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, says that as of March, that was the average hourly cost to employers of employee compensation.

Total compensation includes wages, salaries and benefits.

Whenever you see "average," you know there are highs and lows at both ends of the spectrum, and that "average" may not fit you or anyone else precisely. But I like the survey data anyway. It shows us that:

* Nearly one-third of total compensation costs (remember, this is always on average) lie in employee benefits.

* About 8 percent of total compensation costs lie in legally required benefits (employer payments for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation).

* Health insurance benefits account for about 7 percent of total compensation costs (a rising figure, even as employers shift more of the health care cost burden to employees and even as more employers opt out of subsidizing health insurance).

* Union or collective bargaining power makes a difference (Example: employer costs for union members' health insurance average $3.95 per employee hour worked, vs. $1.68 an hour for nonunion employees.)

* Employers can pare benefits costs by two thirds if they don't provide discretionary benefits such as paid vacations or leaves, or contributions to insurance or savings plans (Thereby showing graphically why some employers eschew "best practice" benefits.)

The full report is at www.bls.gov/ect

Dive in if you'd like to gauge where you stand. There are lots of comparisons to be made. You won't like some of them. And you might be interested to note the higher pay and benefits scales for workers in state and local governments than in private industry...depending on where you stand on the whole free market vs. government spectrum.

Lousy jobs outlook

Hold on to the job you have (if you have one...and if you can)!

Last week's disappointing employment report from the U.S. Department of Labor said there were 49,000 fewer establishment payroll jobs in May than in April, and the national jobless rate swooshed upward from 5 percent to 5.5 percent.

This week, The Conference Board extended a dour outlook through the rest of the year. The research organization's Employment Trends Index continued to fall in May. The index has been declining since July 2007.

"We forecast further softening in the labor market, a moderate rise in unemployment, and weaker wage growth over the next several quarters," reported Gad Levanon, senior economist at the board. 

The index is composed of eight factors. The reports and their sources:

The percentage of survey respondents who say jobs are "hard to get" (the board's Consumer Confidence Survey)

The number of new claims for unemployment checks (Labor department)

The percentage of establishments with one or more jobs open (National Federation of Independent Business)

The number of employees hired in the temporary help industry (Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics)

The number of workers working part-time for economic reasons (BLS)

The number of job openings at establishments (BLS)

Industrial production (Federal Reserve)

Real manufacturing and trade sales (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis)

"Over the last year, the index -- like each of its eight components -- has fallen at rates consistent with those we saw in previous periods of employment decline, such as 2001," Levanon said.

The important conclusion for those looking for better days: "We don't see signs of a turnaround yet," he said.

Green, green, it's green they say

The boomer generation heard "plastics" was the way to go. New entrants in today's workforce are hearing "green."

Industries that fuel a "clean energy" economy are expected to provide good job options -- for the workers who bring the right skills to the table, that is.

A report commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council and released in cooperation with a host of green organizations looks at job categories in 12 states -- Missouri included -- as a measure of the job market in occupations that might thrive in a green economy.

Read it at:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/green_jobs.pdf

The report looks at six predicted growth areas: Building retrofitting, mass transit, energy-efficient vehicles, wind power, solar power, and cellulosic biomass fuels.

The good news for many workers is that you don't have to be an engineer or a chemist to have a future in green industries. Building retrofitting, for example, needs roofers. Several of the areas need sheet metal workers. Mass transit needs drivers.

In short, there's continued opportunity for a lot of "old line" jobs...just with a new twist. To help workers gauge pay levels and availability of such jobs, the report includes tables with detailed state-by-state information.

Got pantyhose?

Amid all the talk about generational differences in the workplace, a new topic du jour has arisen:

Pantyhose.

Gen Y (Millennial) women don't wear them to work. They don't even wear them with formal dresses. Heck, many of them don't even own any.

Many young legs, especially in a summer tan, look lovely bare. But that's not the case with many older legs. And, as the hose-less trend flowers in the hot summer months, human resource officers are beginning to deal with the pantyhose issue.

To wear, or not to wear?

As usual, Gen X is somewhere in the middle, but there's a clear style division when it comes to women who are Boomer-aged and older. Most "older" professional women do not feel properly businesslike or dressed up if not in pantyhose when wearing skirts or dresses.

The trend toward casual wear at work and at places of worship encouraged bare legs. When women stopped wearing business suits and high heels, pantyhose just didn't seem as necessary. Pantsuits helped, too. And the fashion flood of open-toed shoes and sandals made pantyhose slightly ridiculous.

Still, there's a sense in many board rooms and executive suites that bare legs are wrong. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Where do you stand?