Although the U.S. economy is recovering, the addition of many low-wage jobs is causing a surprising trend among college graduates. According to a study by McKinsey & Company, almost half of college graduates are working in jobs that do not require a degree (McKinsey & Company, May 2013). This is leading many to question whether or not investing in higher education is the best course of action for young adults.

College graduates seem to be doing well according to their unemployment rate, which was only 3.9 percent in April, nearly half of the national unemployment rate. However, the jobs that many graduates hold require no more than a high school education, and some of them don't even require that much. Labor industries, which don't often require any education past high school, have been among those adding the most jobs, according to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.

The fact that college graduates are now stepping into jobs for which they are overqualified is not all bad; the economy is still recovering and jobs are still being filled. However, most graduates find themselves saddled with thousands of dollars in education loans from the government and from private lenders. On top of that, most of the jobs graduates are filling pay minimum wage or only slightly better. This puts more financial pressure on graduates, as their entire paychecks are spent on living expenses and paying back debt for an education that seemed to promise a better job. This limits the amount of money they can contribute to the economy by making large purchases and buying homes.

Those with an associate's degree or higher still have the upper hand when it comes to the labor force, even if these jobs pay less. With this trend comes an even more unsettling set of data, which shows that while these college-educated workers are taking lower-paying jobs, those who have less education are being pushed out of the workforce altogether. Uneducated workers make up a smaller percentage of hourly workers now than in 2002 (The Wall Street Journal, 3/30/13). Therefore, while it is encouraging that college graduates can still manage to find work in a tough economy, it shows no promise for those with no education.

The economy's recovery in relation to lower-wage labor jobs may still be a good thing since those new workers will need supervisors and managers, jobs that educated workers can fill or be promoted into. This will open up more jobs for those with less education. This is likely why many Americans still believe a college education is valuable. Considering these trends, it is becoming clearer that the younger generations' college degrees act much like their parents' high school diplomas. In order to find work at all, some education beyond high school is desirable, even if the jobs being filled are not those typically thought of as requiring secondary education.

Readers: Does your job require a four-year degree?

This entry was posted on May 16, 2013 at 7:55 AM and has received 306 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

Many newsworthy topics are on Americans' minds as they watch legislators in Washington hash out their differences over such topics as immigration and budget and spending cuts. One piece of legislation, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), promises to have far-reaching effect. The bill has only passed the House of Representatives thus far and has a long way to go before earning approval of the Senate and the White House; however, the fact that it is being pushed and backed by many begs the question of whether or not this will be the first large piece of legislation leading to a world where the line between the public and private sectors is no longer easily defined.

CISPA is a bill that was introduced last year as a bipartisan effort to be able to target cyber terrorists. The concern is that other countries seeking to harm the United States have now taken to computer hacking as a way to hurt the economy and obtain information. CISPA would allow technology and manufacturing companies to share user information with the government, and vice versa, in the event of a possible national security threat. The National Security Administration would ask for user information from relevant corporations, who would turn it over without due process. The bill would also trump any other privacy laws, making all user information available to the government without the user's consent, or even knowledge.

Many groups, notably the ACLU, have expressed concern that the bill is far too broad. The ACLU claims that CISPA violates the Fourth Amendment since companies would not be required to anonymize the information, and it would be collected by the government without following proper search and seizure processes. (The government would be required to anonymize user information when sharing it with private companies.) The White House also states that the bill will be vetoed unless the vague language concerning privacy is amended before passing through the Senate.

Although this bill has a long way to go before becoming a law, it is well on its way since most large tech companies actually support it, including Microsoft, IBM, and Apple, among others. This is due to the fact that these companies all have to monitor their own users and deal with security threats, which is highly expensive. CISPA would effectively place much of this burden on the government.

While the chief concern of the White House and groups like the ACLU is privacy for Internet users, especially law-abiding citizens, there is another concern possibly being overlooked by those arguing over this bill. CISPA blurs the line between the public and private sectors. So far, private companies would only have to turn over user information willingly, but if CISPA passes, how long will it be before the government makes this transfer of information mandatory in the interest of "national security?"

Although there are laws that regulate parts of private industries for the safety of the American people, CISPA may be one that digs too far into user privacy, possibly leading to complete control by the State. It could also lead to laws enacted within other industries in the interest of anti-terrorism. The fact that it overrides any other privacy act and clause used prior to its passing is a sign that this may be a piece of legislation that cannot be reversed if later found to be too invasive to the privacy of Americans, and it could set us down a road toward a fully government-controlled economy and society.

Readers: Are you worried that the passage of CISPA will overly blur the lines between the public and private sectors?

This entry was posted on May 9, 2013 at 8:00 AM and has received 277 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April Employment Situation Summary. This report showed that unemployment has fallen again by 0.1%, bringing the United States to 7.5% unemployment. This change, though small, is a continuation of a downward trend over the past several months. The long-term unemployment rate fell from 39.6% of the total unemployed to 37.4%.

Total nonfarm payroll added 165,000 jobs in April. The industry that added the most jobs was professional and business services at 73,000. Professional and technical services also added 23,000 jobs. Food services and drinking places added 38,000 jobs in April, rising far above the monthly average for the industry, which is 25,000. Retail services also rose by 29,000 jobs. Health care added 19,000 jobs. Several industries showed almost no change, including construction, manufacturing, mining and logging, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities, and government.

The staffing industry added 31,000 jobs in April, which was 7.4% higher than in April 2012, showing that employers are leaning more toward temporary solutions over the last year.It is also estimated that the staffing industry is responsible for adding 59,400 new jobs since March.

The average hourly wage rose by 4 cents to $23.87 in private nonfarm payrolls. Also, the Dow is up 1.2% to 15,006.56. Not only has the job market seen these increases, but the adjusted data from February and March added 114,000 jobs to the previously estimate data over the two months. While many have questioned whether or not the economy has really been in recovery over the last several months, it is now clear that the U.S. economy is expanding.

This entry was posted on May 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM and has received 122 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

Which employees within an organization are most engaged and why? These two questions are becoming increasingly important to business owners and managers for several reasons. First, popular research continues to show that the higher the employee engagement, the more efficient their work and the better the business. Also, companies are increasingly fearful that disengaged employees will look at options elsewhere now that the economic rebound is feeling more certain.

So, how do managers work toward having a more engaged staff? Identifying the employees within an organization who are more engaged in their jobs may be half the battle. Gallup.com has conducted surveys on employee engagement for years and has recently released the results of their latest study. Since 2009, almost all employee groups have become more engaged at work, but the group that has improved most includes managers, executives, and officials who have climbed from 26% engagement in 2009 to 36% in 2012.

While it is not clear why many high-level employees are more engaged, there is room for careful speculation. Gallup infers that it is likely that executives and managers are personally more invested in pushing their organizations to do well, especially in light of the economy, and may have more faith in the recovery of our economy than lower-level workers. It is also highly likely that they feel and can exert more control over the operations in the organization while the economy is down.

However, this leaves out a key point. Higher-level managers are responsible for many more tasks, individuals, and day-to-day processes than lower-level employees. While engagement is based on who is more excited and enthusiastic about their work, it also may show who is more committed to work based on levels of responsibility. Managing others can create a feeling of engagement out of necessity since those doing the job would not be there if they were not able to stay engaged and on-task. Leaders who feel a sense of purpose and control are also probably more likely to be engaged in their work, especially if they find managing others to be a rewarding job.

It is possible that there is a correlation between how much responsibility an individual has within an organization and their level of engagement. It is also possible that the employees with the least responsibility feel less engaged in their work because they have no control over the direction of the organization. For example, manufacturing and transportation workers were the least engaged in 2009 and still were in 2012. Service workers were the only group whose engagement over the last few years has fallen, going from 32% in 2009 to 29% in 2012. It's likely that these statistics can be attributed to these workers often feeling they are the least responsible for company direction.

There is perhaps a lesson to be learned, which is that more responsibility and autonomy can create a sense of pride in one's work and therefore boost employee engagement. Employees want to feel needed and like their work matters in the grand scheme of the organization. They want to feel ownership over their projects; a good manager will facilitate that sense of accountability and ownership. If you are looking for the least engaged employee, find him or her at the bottom. Give that team member more responsibility and build up the satisfaction he or she takes in the job and watch employee engagement soar, along with productivity.

Readers: Do you feel that you are an engaged employee? Are you a high-level or lower-level employee in your organization?

This entry was posted on May 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM and has received 353 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

In light of the recent explosion at a fertilizer plant in the city of West, Texas, safety plans and regulatory processes are being called into question. While several agencies at the national and state levels strive to regulate all working environments, some more dangerous facilities may be slipping through the cracks, making catastrophic accidents not only possible, but likely.

Due to the high volume of worksites that are monitored and regulated, not every site can be inspected every year. Agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspect sites with complaints against them or that have a high priority attached to them (because, for example, they use or store highly explosive materials). However, even facilities such as West Chemical & Fertilizer Co. can fall off the radar. OSHA had not inspected this facility since 1985, at which time they fined the plant for storing anhydrous ammonia -- a serious violation. Yet, the fine was only $30, and other violations cited at the time carried no fines for the company.

Not only had OSHA found West Chemical & Fertilizer in violation of safety regulations, but multiple other agencies also had done so (ThinkProgress.org, 4/22/13). Though many citations at this company have resulted in fines and further inspections, the penalties seem like a slap on the wrist when compared to the company's profits. Annual revenues for the fertilizer manufacturing industry are around $20 billion (IBISWorld.com). Even the $10,000 fine issued in 2011 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for multiple serious violations would not have been a huge loss in profits for the West fertilizer plant, and they only paid a portion of it after taking responsibility for the violations.

While agencies that inspect and regulate all private companies in the United States have an excellent set of regulations in place, enforcement becomes difficult when some companies fall to the bottom of the priority list for inspections. Also, while inspection results are a matter of public record, the agencies that conduct inspections and issue citations do not have to communicate with each other. Therefore, when one agency finds a company in violation of a safety regulation that could impact another agency's inspection schedule, a lack of communication makes it impossible for that agency to know that an inspection should take place.

Although companies know that an impromptu inspection can bring to light many violations within their workplaces, the likelihood of such an inspection is low. Even then, the penalty for failing to comply with safety regulations can be low compared to the financial "benefit" of cutting corners. These factors, coupled with the fact that larger companies are often the targets of scrutiny, allow small companies with a long history of violations to get by without implementing better safety plans. The result may often be a small problem, but even one devastating event like the one in West is too many.

Readers: Do you think government penalties for failing to comply with safety standards are high enough to effect positive change?

This entry was posted on April 25, 2013 at 8:00 AM and has received 393 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

Being healthy at home and in one's personal life is becoming one area of focus for many companies across the United States. However, we often forget about keeping ourselves well throughout the working day. With an estimated $576 billion lost in the U.S. economy due to illness, disability, and workers' compensation (Forbes, 9/12/12), the need for staying healthy at work is at an all-time high. We have some tips for staying health-conscious in the workplace.

Take breaks. Stress causes an incredible amount of illness and can also distract workers, making workplace injuries much more likely. Taking a breather between projects will also boost productivity. Take a quick walk outside or lay your head down for a moment in order to reduce workplace stress.

Eat healthier and drink water. It is very easy to hit your favorite burger joint at lunchtime or even to skip lunch due to a heavy workload. However, these habits cause our bodies to function poorly, effectively lowering productivity. That extra time you spent at your desk without eating a proper meal can slow you down for the rest of the afternoon. Drinking lots of coffee and sugary drinks at work can also make your work suffer when you crash. When your body is working well, your work will improve greatly.

Get enough rest at night. A huge loss in productivity is caused by presenteeism, the concept that people are at work but are not working to their full potential due to exhaustion, illness, or other problems. Getting enough sleep at night can improve health, help you lose weight, and improve focus dramatically. You will feel less stressed and will be able to accomplish more on a full night's rest.

Keep your work area clean. Germs are everywhere and are very easily transferred. Keep hand sanitizer at your work station as well as some antibacterial wipes that you can use to clean up at least once a month. Your mouse, keyboard, and phone can harbor contaminants, and wiping them clean from time to time will help to keep preventable sicknesses away.

Stay home when you are not well. If you are sick, coming in to the office can be a catastrophe, as you can infect the rest of your colleagues. It is tempting to come in to work and suffer through the day so as not to fall behind or use up valuable sick days, but this is inconsiderate and will end up reducing your team's productivity in the long run, as more people could miss days from catching your illness. Take the time to get better at home.

Managers should be aware of the various pitfalls at work that can lead to an unhealthy staff. Encourage your team to have healthy habits and give them some slack to be able to take the time they need to be well. This will cause productivity to soar and will lead to a happier staff that will work well together and have less unnecessary stress.

Readers: What measures do you take to remain healthy during your work day?

This entry was posted on April 18, 2013 at 8:05 AM and has received 298 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

In last week's TradePost, we discussed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and how it affects American businesses of all sizes (TradePost, 4/4/13).

This week, we'll focus more on those businesses that have more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees on the payroll and the way they can mitigate the financial and administrative burden posed by the legislation once the "pay or play" election requirements take effect on January 1, 2014. Under Obamacare, those companies will either have to offer expensive health care coverage to their employees or pay a $2,000 - $3,000 fine (after tax) per employee.

Experts agree that the best strategic solution can be summed up in two words... temporary staffing.

On a recent episode of his CNBC show Mad Money, financial analyst Jim Cramer noted that the demand for temps is mushrooming, "fueled in part by the pending implementation of Obamacare." He says:

"Businesses of all sizes are searching for ways to cope with this law, and the easiest way to avoid paying these expenses is to hire more temps."

It's a matter of math. To avoid the Obamacare penalties, or the requirement to provide health insurance to all its employees, companies can shed its employees and hire temporary workers through a staffing firm -- enough to lower their direct payroll to under 50 full-time employees.

Similarly, large employers can hire temps instead of full-time employees to perform work; the costs of paying a staffing firm's bill rate are usually significantly below the high costs of providing health insurance for employees, especially since health insurance costs are projected to increase by 8% next year, according to Milliman Medical Index.

According to Cramer, "Companies need to start making their adjustments now," due to the 12-month look back (measuring) period that starts on January 1, 2014. Not only will costs start to increase on that date, but heavy expectations for administrative reporting and compliance will take effect as well. The American Action Form estimates that the new law will create 111 million hours of paperwork burden in first three years (The Hill, 3/25/13).

The Select Family of Staffing Companies has studied the potential effects of the Affordable Care Act carefully. With 350,000 employees W-2d last year, Select has a strong vested interest in understanding how this legislation will impact its clients. Your Select representative will gladly discuss the practical and strategic steps your business should be taking now to position yourself for full compliance and minimization of financial exposure. To have someone contact you about what your company can do, please email us at tradepost@selectfamily.com.

Readers – will you add temps to your staff or offset your current staff to a temporary agency to mitigate the financial burden of the Affordable Care Act?

This entry was posted on April 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM and has received 830 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

The March Employment Situation Summary, released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics this morning, shows that the unemployment rate in the U.S. has remained mostly static, falling only 0.1% from 7.7% to 7.6%. This leaves 11.7 million Americans unemployed, a number that has hardly changed since February.

The number of long-term unemployed dropped slightly from 4.8 million to 4.6 million, and those make up about 39.6% of all unemployed people. The number of nonfarm jobs increased by 88,000 over the month.

Professional and business services added 51,000 jobs, while accounting and bookkeeping services added 11,000 jobs; 23,000 health care jobs were added over the month, and construction added 18,000 jobs. Retail jobs fell by 24,000 over the course of the month, as well as a decline of 12,000 jobs for the U.S. postal service. Meanwhile, temporary help services have continued to show a slight upward trend across all industries, adding 20,300 new jobs this month (up 0.8%).

Average hourly earnings across the private sector have changed very little, and the average hours per work week across all industries have remained mostly unchanged. The very small amount of growth across all industries indicates that March has been a month of very little change to the job market and wages.

This entry was posted on April 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM and has received 217 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as "Obamacare," has been on the minds of Americans since its introduction into law in 2010. Business owners are especially concerned with the implications of this legislation and the new costs associated with it. Still, there remains confusion and debate over exactly what the changes will mean for U.S. businesses. As a result, in this week's TradePost, we have highlighted the major changes associated with the ACA that relate to businesses both small and large.

Many provisions in the ACA benefit small businesses so that they have the ability to offer insurance plans to employees for prices comparable to larger plans, which are often discounted by insurance providers. Perhaps the most notable is that in 2014, the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP Exchange) will be available to small businesses who would like to compare plans and offer the most affordable coverage to their employees. This program offers a way for small businesses to shop for the best plan for their businesses. States must provide this program by 2014, or the federal government will do it for them. Also, tax credits will also be available to small businesses in order to offset the high costs of coverage for small employers.

So what constitutes a small business? According to the ACA, a small business is defined as having up to 50 full-time employees, or having the equivalent of 50 or fewer "full-time equivalent" employees (the total hours among all full- and part-time employees equals the amount of hours worked by 50 full-time employees).

On January 1, 2014, larger businesses, those with over 50 full-time equivalent employees, must be ready to either PAY (a penalty for each employee left uncovered) or PLAY (and offer health insurance to each full-time employee). Businesses who "pay" will be fined $2,000 per employee after the first 30 employees. Those who "play" must offer insurance that covers at least 60% of the cost of services while ensuring employee premiums do not exceed 9.5% of the employee's household income. If this standard is not met, employees may receive a tax credit to help cover the cost of the insurance offered, which the employer will have to subsidize by paying $3,000 per employee or the $2,000 fee per employee after the first 30, whichever is less.

Many businesses are concerned about the financial and administrative ramifications of complying with Obamacare. Some have announced plans to cut their workforce and/or cut back employees' hours, effectively underemploying many people and making it difficult for them to afford insurance for themselves and their families. These are debates that are still being argued in Washington and beyond.

What strategy works best for your business? Please join us again next week as we will discuss strategic plans for implementing the Affordable Care Act.

Reader Question: Does your business have a firm plan in place to implement the Affordable Care Act?

This entry was posted on April 4, 2013 at 8:00 AM and has received 1136 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

This week will be one to remember as the United States Supreme Court examines Proposition 8 from California as well as the Defense of Marriage Act. When social issues heat up, many companies face the question of whether or not they should take a public stance. Doing so could yield some undesired consequences for a company's profits, but Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says that the bottom line is not what it's all about.

In a recent meeting with Starbucks shareholders, Schultz commented that embracing diversity is of importance to the company, especially since it employs over 200,000 people. Therefore, the company takes a stance favoring the legalization of same-sex marriage. The concern among at least one shareholder is that this could cause a boycott of the company among those that oppose this view, leading to a potentially large decrease in sales (Time, 3/25/13).

This begs the question of whether it is good business practice to take a stance on such a hot-button issue. However, if Chick-fil-A is any model to follow, publicizing an opinion as a company may not be all bad; the fast-food company's sales rose by 12 percent in 2012 despite the public controversy over President Dan Kathy's words in defense of traditional marriage (HuffingtonPost.com, 1/31/13). While there may be those on the opposing side who become angry and boycott, there are others who will agree and go above and beyond to support that company, both vocally and financially.

Political statements from top executives are also pushing a trend which is that marketing is now done in a more honest way. While some marketing experts believe that political statements are gimmicks, others believe that consumers can more readily trust a company that is honest and open about which groups and issues they support and to which organizations they donate (NBC News, 12/10/12). This makes sense not only from a business perspective, but also from a practical angle. The availability of information makes it almost impossible for a company to hide its values unless it never donates to organizations and its executives fly under the radar of public opinion. Also, consumers often appreciate the opportunity to make an informed decision about where to shop or conduct business.

There are many organizations, including Microsoft, Nike, AutoZone, and The Salvation Army, whose top executives have publicly expressed their opinions on matters ranging from abortion and the environment to gay rights and third-world issues. Some of these companies are also Fortune 500 businesses that have grown and done well even in tough times. An executive's option to choose a side for the company may be healthy as it does not seem to hurt business, and may even help if the company's target demographics agree. When there is confidence in a brand, there is also less concern that consumers will abandon their business due to political or social ties, placing the company in a better position to take a stand on issues, so long as it is done in a diplomatic way.

Reader Question: Do you think executives should vocalize their opinions on social issues?

This entry was posted on March 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM and has received 690 views. There are currently 1 comments. Print this entry.