Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Spring Temperatures Don't Thaw Employment Deep Freeze

By Theresa Minton-Eversole 

With a dearth of good news on the economic front, manufacturing and service sector companies will keep a tight rein on payrolls in April, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Leading Indicators of National Employment (LINE) survey.

The LINE report examines four key areas: employers’ hiring expectations, new-hire compensation, difficulty in recruiting top-level talent and job vacancies.

Continuing the trend of recent months, April 2009 hiring expectations will hit four-year lows, and recruiting difficulty was nearly nonexistent in March 2009. Likewise, wages and benefits packages for new hires are shrinking, with employers in both sectors reporting decreases in new-hire compensation, which was at the lowest March levels in four years in both sectors. 

Employment Expectations

Manufacturing

Service

Employment expectations for April 2009 at four-year lows in both manufacturing and service sectors.

 -53.5

 

 

-40.7

Recruiting Difficulty

 

 

Recruiting difficulty in both sectors in March 2009 was down sharply compared with March 2008.

 

 -24.7

-32.3

New-Hire Compensation

 

 

Wages and benefits packages for new hires continued to shrink in March 2009 compared with March 2008.

 -10.0

 

 

-7.0

Source:  SHRM Leading Indicators of National Employment (LINE)

Manufacturing, Service Sectors Still Shedding Jobs

By nearly a two-to-one margin, manufacturing sector survey respondents plan to eliminate jobs in April 2009 (31.2 percent will decrease payrolls, 16.7 percent will be hiring). The number of manufacturing companies adding jobs in April will fall by more than two-thirds from April 2008. April has traditionally been a strong month for manufacturing job growth. In April 2007, more than 60 percent of companies added to their payrolls. But the number of hiring companies has dwindled to 16.7 percent in just two years. The manufacturing sector lost 1.3 million jobs from the start of the recession in December 2007 through February 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Hiring in the service sector, while still far behind 2008 levels, had shown some promise in February and March 2009. During each of those months, more companies conducted hiring than layoffs. In April, however, the sector has regressed: A net of 5.5 percent of companies will cut jobs during the month (21.7 percent will add to payrolls, 27.2 percent will conduct layoffs). April 2009’s negative net of 5.5 percent is a four-year low for LINE, down from a peak reached in April 2006, when 53 percent of service sector companies added jobs.

Abundance of Talent Available to Hiring Companies

For the first time in four years in March 2009, LINE recorded single-digit response levels for those reporting increased difficulty with recruiting. In the manufacturing sector, only 2.7 percent of respondents reported increased recruiting difficulty in March, compared with 24 percent who reported less difficulty.

The gap was even wider in the service sector. In March 2009, just 1.7 percent of those respondents reported increased recruiting difficulty, compared with 25.4 percent that had less difficulty.

“With millions of people seeking work and fewer opportunities that exist, a reverse to this trend in the LINE recruiting difficulty index is not likely in the near future,” according to Jennifer Schramm, SHRM’s manager of workplace trends and forecasting.

Exempt, Nonexempt Vacancies Dropping Steadily

HR professionals in the manufacturing and service sectors reported declines in exempt vacancies in March 2009 compared with March 2008. In the manufacturing sector, a net total of 8.3 percent of respondents reported decreases in exempt vacancies (8.7 percent reported increases, 17 percent reported decreases).

In the service sector, a net total of 11.3 percent of respondents reported declines in exempt vacancies in March (7.7 percent reported increases, 19.0 percent reported decreases). In January 2009, there were 3 million job openings in the United States. That represents a 35 percent drop from September 2007, when the number of job openings began a gradual monthly decline, according to the BLS.

A net total of 9.2 percent of manufacturing respondents reported that nonexempt vacancies declined in March 2009 as well (9.6 percent increased, 18.8 percent decreased).

In March 2008, manufacturing respondents were still reporting increases in vacancies (a net total of 10.5 percent), according to the LINE survey data, indicating that manufacturers were still hiring only 12 months ago and had yet to face the worst of the economic downturn.

For nonexempt service positions, a net total of 8.4 percent reported decreased vacancies in March 2009 (15.0 percent increased, 23.4 percent decreased).

With vacancy levels falling in both sectors, LINE data show that more employers are cutting jobs or imposing hiring freezes during the economic downturn. Likewise, the BLS reported in January 2008 that the national job openings rate was 2.2 percent—the lowest level in five years.

Increases for Wages, Benefits at Four-Year Low

Many companies have scuttled hiring plans during the recession, and wages and benefits are getting trimmed in the effort to control costs.

In the manufacturing sector, a net total of 1.3 percent of respondents said they would decrease new-hire compensation in March 2009 (1.3 percent increased, 2.6 percent decreased). That is the first time in four years that the net total for manufacturers ventured into negative territory.

The service sector is also showing a four-year low for March 2009 for net increases to new-hire compensation packages. A net total of 2.2 percent of companies reduced wages and benefits packages for new hires in March (1.2 percent increased, 3.4 percent decreased).

“The low response total in both sectors indicates that many companies are likely keeping wages and benefits packages flat for new hires,” Schramm said.

The LINE report is based on a monthly survey of private sector human resource professionals at more than 500 manufacturing and 500 service-sector companies. Together, these sectors employ more than 90 percent of the nation’s private sector workers.

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT: WHAT EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOW

By Jennifer Brown Shaw and Becki D. Graham 

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) into law. The stated purpose of the ARRA, often referred to simply as the “stimulus bill,” is to improve our economy by, among other things, creating and saving jobs, improving affordable health care, providing tax relief, and improving the nation’s infrastructure.

The ARRA affects employers in a number of ways. Most notably, it significantly amends the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), which provides workers and their families who lose their group health plan benefits the ability to continue benefits for a limited period of time. The ARRA also contains provisions relating to the employment of H1-B workers, executive compensation, unemployment compensation, HIPAA, whistleblower protections for employees of contractors that receive ARRA funds, and certain tax credits. We briefly summarize each of these provisions below.

COBRA Premium Subsidy and Related Employer Tax Credits

Congress passed COBRA in 1986 to provide employees and their dependents the ability to temporarily continue group health care coverage for up to 18 months after a “qualifying event,” such as termination or reduction in hours. Until the ARRA became law, the employee was responsible for paying the entire premium for continued coverage—generally up to 102% of the applicable premium while the employee was working.

The ARRA makes several temporary modifications to COBRA, the most significant of which is the implementation of a federal subsidy to reduce the cost to employees of COBRA premiums.

Eligibility and Coverage. Under the ARRA, individuals (and their qualifying beneficiaries) who are “involuntarily terminated” between September 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009, will be eligible for a 65% reduction in their COBRA premiums. There is an interesting debate among commentators about the definition of “involuntarily terminated,” particularly when there is a mutual decision to end the employment relationship.

Covered employers are responsible for subsidizing the premium and then taking an appropriate tax credit. Importantly, the subsidy requirement applies not only to employers subject to federal COBRA, but also to smaller employers covered under an equivalent state law, such as Cal-COBRA. As predicted, some employers have chosen to cancel health insurance coverage altogether rather than provide the subsidy. Similarly, certain employers that agreed in the past to pay COBRA benefits as part of a separation package have eliminated that aspect of the package. After all, the thought goes, if the government will pay, why should the employer?

Congress recognized that some individuals who became eligible for COBRA before the enactment of the ARRA may have declined coverage due to its cost. Accordingly, the ARRA provides for an extended COBRA election period for eligible individuals who did not initially elect coverage. These individuals have up to 60 days from notification of the extended period to elect COBRA continuation coverage.

Notably, certain “high income” individuals with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $125,000 ($250,000 if filing a joint tax return) will not be eligible for the COBRA subsidy.

Premium Reduction Period. Eligible individuals will receive a premium reduction for up to nine months, unless their COBRA coverage period expires or they become eligible for other types of health care coverage before the nine-month period ends.

Notice Requirements. Employers must comply with specific notice requirements under the new provisions. Any individuals eligible for COBRA coverage between September 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009, must receive a notice describing their rights. Any individuals who became eligible for COBRA before February 17, 2009, must receive the notice no later than April 18, 2009. Also, in certain circumstances, employers also must inform individuals of their right to enroll in a different health benefit plan.

The Secretary of Labor will provide sample notices by March 19, 2009.

Employer Tax Credits. Employers may recover subsidized COBRA premiums by either offsetting their payroll tax deposits or claiming the subsidy as an overpayment on the tax return at the end of each quarter. The Internal Revenue Service recently revised Form 941 for this purpose. Interestingly, employers may not claim a credit until they receive the 35% payment from the individual. Also, employers must report the number of individuals to whom they provided the subsidy. While employers are not required to submit any documentation to the IRS, they must retain the appropriate documentation to support any claimed credits.

Tips for Implementation. The new COBRA rules are extensive and complicated. As such, employers should partner with counsel experienced in benefits law regarding compliance questions. Employers must tend to a number of items, including amending their current COBRA forms, creating a retention policy for documents that support claimed tax credits, and assessing how the new rules apply to employees involuntarily terminated prior to the effective date of the ARRA.

Additional information regarding the changes to COBRA can be found on the Department of Labor’s website at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/cobra.html and on the IRS’s website at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204708,00.html.

Restrictions on the Use of H1-B Workers

Under the ARRA, employers that receive funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) (a 2008 law passed to address the subprime mortgage crisis) will be limited in their ability to use H1-B workers. For the next two years, such employers must actively recruit U.S. workers before employing H1-B workers. That includes situations in which employers are seeking to replace workers previously laid off.

Limitations on Executive Compensation

The ARRA also limits executive compensation for employers that receive TARP funds. Among other things, the ARRA limits bonuses and certain “excessive” or “luxury” expenditures. Employers subject to this provision should become familiar with the new restrictions and modify their practices accordingly.

Increased Unemployment Compensation Benefits

With the enactment of the ARRA, individuals who receive benefits through regular unemployment compensation, Trade Readjustment Allowances, Disaster Unemployment Benefits, Emergency Unemployment Compensation, or Extended Benefits will receive $25 more a week until December 31, 2009. In addition, any federal income tax on the first $2,400 of federal unemployment benefits is suspended for 2009.

Changes to HIPAA

The ARRA expands the privacy and security measures required under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”). Widely misunderstood by many employers, HIPPA generally seeks to protect individuals’ health information. Some of the most notable changes include expanding HIPAA coverage to the “business associates” of entities currently subject to HIPAA’s rules, requiring covered entities and business associates to report breaches of protected health information, creating a new enforcement authority to bring actions for damages or injunctions to enforce the HIPAA rules, and increasing the civil penalties for HIPAA violations.

While non-health care employers have relatively few obligations under HIPAA, all employers should consult with benefits counsel to ensure they are in full compliance with the new rules.

Whistleblower Protections for State and Local Government Contractors

To promote accountability, the ARRA protects “whistleblowers” who report alleged misuse of ARRA funds. Specifically, state and local government contractors (federal contractors are exempt) that receive ARRA funds are prohibited from discharging, demoting, or otherwise discriminating against an employee for reporting (a) instances of gross mismanagement of a contract or grant, (b) waste of agency funds, (c) public health or safety dangers, (d) abuse of authority related to the implementation or use of covered funds, or (e) a violation of any laws related to the contract or grant.

The federal Investigator General will review whistleblower complaints. If a compliant is substantiated, the appropriate federal agency director will order the contractor to take affirmative action to stop the retaliatory conduct, pay the subject employee an amount equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorneys’ and expert witnesses’ fees) the employee incurred in connection with bringing the complaint, and/or, if applicable, reinstate the employee to his or her former position and provide the employee compensation and other employment benefits the employee would have received if the retaliatory conduct had not taken place.

If a complaint is not substantiated through the ARRA’s administrative process, the “whistleblower” may bring an action for damages in federal court. In addition, the agency director may file a civil action for enforcement of any issued order, subjecting the contractor to compensatory and punitive damages.

In addition, employers receiving ARRA funds must post a notice of “whistleblower” rights and remedies. As of the date of this article, there is no indication regarding where employers can obtain a copy of the notice.

Making Work Pay Tax Credit

The ARRA establishes a number of tax credits, including the Making Work Pay credit. This earned income tax credit is the lesser of 6.2% of an individual’s earned income or $400 ($800 for joint tax returns). The credit applies to the 2009 and 2010 tax year, and will be spread out over employee paychecks. The credit begins to phase out for individuals whose adjusted gross income is between $75,000 and $95,000 (between $150,000 and $190,000 for joint tax returns).

The IRS recently released new tax withholding tables that incorporate the new credit. According to the IRS, employers should begin using the new tables no later than April 1, 2009. The new tables can be found at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/n1036.pdf. The IRS will also post instructions outlined in Publication 15-T on its website (www.irs.gov) during the week of March 9, 2009.

Employers should work with their payroll staff or vendors to ensure the new credit is properly applied.

Tax Credits for Hiring Unemployed Veterans and Disconnected Youth

Section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code permits employers to claim a work opportunity tax credit for wages paid to certain “target group” employees. The ARRA expands this credit for the 2009 and 2010 tax years to make it available to employers who hire unemployed veterans and “disconnected youth.”

A “disconnected youth” is an individual between the ages of 16 and 25 who lacks a sufficient number of basic skills, and has not attended school or been regularly employed within six months of being hired by the employer. An “unemployed veteran” is someone who was discharged five years prior to being hired and received unemployment benefits for more than four weeks in the prior year.

Employers should assess whether they have hired any individuals in these target groups to take advantage of the new credit.

Increased Commuter Benefits

The ARRA temporarily increases the mass transit and vanpool benefits employers may provide to their employees. Through December 31, 2010, employers may claim an increased tax deduction for paying certain employee commuting expenses. Alternatively, employees may fund their own commuting expenses as part of a qualified transportation fringe benefits plan and exclude such expenses from their gross income. For 2009, the maximum exclusion amount will increase from $120 to $230.

Employers who wish to offer the increased benefits should amend their plan documents accordingly and notify employees of the change.

Conclusion

Most of the ARRA’s provisions became effective on February 17, 2009. Therefore, employers should work quickly to evaluate how the ARRA will affect their operations and take the necessary steps to ensure compliance. 

Using Behavioral Interviewing Techniques To Select the Right Employees

By Libby Anderson, M.S., SPHR 

Employee turnover is a costly fact of life. Hiring a replacement worker can cost companies anywhere from $10,000 to half an employee’s annual salary—that’s per each lost employee, according to some experts.

Turnover expenses can be avoided or reduced significantly, however, by selecting the right applicant for the position in the first place. Of course, employee selection success doesn’t always come naturally. Well-intentioned employers can be duped by applicants who might know all the right things to say in an interview but who don’t have the skills to do the job. But learning a few behavioral interviewing techniques can help recruiters, HR professionals and hiring managers gain added insight into how an applicant will perform on the job.

Traditional approaches to interviewing—such as asking open-ended questions, relying on “gut instincts” and asking the basic who, what, why, when and where questions—typically don’t garner all the information needed to make a smart hiring decision. Responses to these questions are often vague, future-oriented and entirely subjective.

Behavioral-based questions, however, follow the psychological premise that past behavior predicts future performance. In other words, if an applicant has done something in the past, he or she is likely to do it again in the future.

Focus on Job Criteria, Performance

Behavioral-based interviews incorporate questions that deal with specifics about an applicant’s past work performance. Knowing how an applicant has behaved in the past can help determine if that person will exhibit the company’s preferred workplace behavior. As a bonus, behavioral interviewing reduces liability because it involves questions that are strictly related to workplace behavior.

Begin the behavioral-interviewing process by determining the performance criteria for the job that needs to be filled. An easy way to achieve this is to use a job description. If a job description isn’t available, make a list of the things that are essential to performing the job effectively. For example, a customer service representative position might involve the following job-related criteria:

  • Energy: Consistently maintains high productivity or activity level.
  • Oral Communication Skills: Effective nonverbal and verbal expression.
  • Tolerance for Stress: Stability of performance under pressure.
  • Adaptability: Maintains effectiveness in varying situations.
  • Positive Customer Service Orientation: Makes proactive effort to listen to and understand the customer, anticipates customer needs, and gives high priority to customer satisfaction.
  • Team Player Attitude: Works effectively and willingly with team members.
Every position has different criteria. Other criteria that can be used include initiative, judgment, professionalism, tenacity, written communication skills, sales ability, practical learning, safety awareness, quality orientation, attention to detail, decisiveness, problem solving and goal setting.

Once the criteria for effective job performance have been determined, design questions that will garner the information needed to decide if the person being interviewed will meet the criteria for the position. Remember, what you are looking for are answers that relate to specific work performance from previous experience because they serve as predictors of how the applicant will perform in your work environment. The following are sample questions for a few of the criteria for the customer service representative job noted previously:

Energy: Describe a time when you had to work at a fast pace for a long period of time. What kind of work did you do? What did you do to maintain the pace?

Oral Communication Skills: Describe a time when you had difficulty communicating with a customer and what you did to overcome that challenge. What was the outcome of that adjustment?

Tolerance for Stress: Describe a situation in which you were faced with a large amount of customer requests at one time. How did you handle the situation, and what was the result?

The key to designing behavioral-based interview questions is to look at the business’s environment and performance requirements and to ask questions that will reveal whether applicants have worked in similar environments and exhibited preferred behaviors in those situations.

Behavioral interviewing does have its challenges, though. For example, most applicants are not used to giving specific examples of their performance and, therefore, will need some coaching. Nevertheless, it’s worth it. Blanket statements such as “I’m a people person” don’t fit into this method of interviewing. Instead of accepting an applicant’s word when he or she refers to being a people person, ask for a specific example of when working with people was a motivating experience.

Behavioral interview questions certainly do not replace traditional interview questions that serve to clarify specifics about experience, education and background. Rather they enhance the quality of information received during the interview process by providing examples of a person’s work-related behavioral patterns. In the long run, effective use of behavioral interviewing techniques can help companies reduce turnover costs and improve their selection process.

Libby Anderson, M.S., SPHR, is a human resource consultant and trainer with EDA Human Resource Services, and a member of the Society for Human Resource Management's Organizational Development Special Expertise Panel. She can be reached at edahrsvcs@aol.com.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Diversity Recruitment: How Now?

By Lee Gardenswartz, Ph.D., and Anita Rowe, Ph.D., December 2006

Question: Despite progress, we continue to face challenges with recruiting a more diverse workforce, especially at higher levels. What strategies can we use to attract top talent from groups that are underrepresented in our organization?

Finding, attracting and keeping a diverse mix of talented employees can be a continuing challenge. Increasing the odds for success involves recognizing and addressing obstacles and expanding recruitment methods and opportunities.

Obstacles to Recruiting

The Community ImageRecruits evaluate more than a company; they consider whether a particular community is a good place to live. Individuals may be reluctant to move to an area if they believe that the schools are inadequate or that the real estate is overpriced or if they fear that they will not be welcomed.

Attitudes Within the OrganizationSome managers and employees may believe that diverse candidates are less qualified and that standards must, therefore, be lowered if they are hired. Diversity and quality must be seen as compatible, rather than mutually exclusive, to overcome this barrier.

An Emphasis on QuotasTalent, skills and qualifications need to be emphasized over numbers. Use of the word quota has a polarizing effect among staff and tends to create resistance. Focusing on numbers creates the perception that those who are hired are tokens rather than valuable employees with unique perspectives and experiences.

Lack of Understanding of the Strategic ImportanceDiverse employees need to be seen as a critical business advantage in order for managers and employees to support increased recruitment efforts. Explaining the connection between diversity and the goals and needs of the organization, such as increased market share, improved customer service or innovation is critical.

Time CommitmentIn the pressure to fill positions quickly, it is easy to succumb to time pressure. Finding new community pipelines, searching for a wider range of recruits and ensuring that candidate slates are diverse may take time. But using the same sources and schools and hiring the friends and relatives of existing employees, while faster, probably wont generally yield a diverse group of candidates. It is, therefore, important for organizations to commit additional time to access diversity.

Like Me BiasAnother obstacle is the human phenomenon of hiring those we perceive to be like us. Helping those who are in recruiting and hiring positions to recognize this potential for bias is one step. Another is getting multiple perspectives on candidates by making sure that hiring panels and recruiting teams are diverse.

Assimilation ModelA final barrier to recruiting and retaining diverse employees has to do with how the organization uses the differences people bring. If the culture requires people to adjust to existing methods and norms rather than using a variety of styles, perspectives and ideas to spark creativity and increase effectiveness, the benefit of diversity is lost. Whats more, forcing square pegs into round holes often causes people to leave, so turnover cancels out recruitment gains.

Strategies for Recruiting Diversity

Once obstacles are addressed, an organization can expand recruiting practices by adopting strategies, such as these, that have been used successfully by other organizations:

Partner Up. Have executives take an active role in assessing diverse talent by going with recruiters to conferences and job fairs. Seeing the talent available can help dispel the common myth that there isnt any out there.

Tap Insiders. Use the expertise and knowledge of members of employee affinity groups to help identify potential employees as well as sources and organizations from which to recruit. Individuals in these groups can suggest communication and outreach methods to reach a wider range of people.

Connect to the Community. Having leaders and managers participate in community events and organizations can build relationships and make inroads to targeted populations and enhance an organizations image as an attractive employer.

Involve Managers. Giving managers techniques to help recruit and holding them accountable for participating in recruiting activities increases commitment to diverse hires and widens an organizations reach through increased contacts.

Encourage Employee Participation. Satisfied employees are among the best assets. Build on this by rewarding employees for referring candidates.

Pay for Expertise. Offering compensation for expertise such as bilingual skills can help attract a wider array of employees.

Showcase the Community. Playing up the advantages that a community offers and giving information that corrects misconceptions about the community help attract candidates who may have been reluctant to relocate.

Review Language. Modifying the language in job ads, descriptions, titles and requirements to eliminate exclusionary language may widen a positions appeal.

Expand Communication Channels. Going beyond traditional media is another aid in reaching employees from communities where the word on the street might be relied upon more than the newspaper. Seek outlets in community and religious centers, local gathering spots and events that draw people from targeted groups.

Use the Talent Scout Approach. Some organizations have found that visiting the homes of targeted recruits, the way sports recruiters do, helps attract potential employees.

Identifying and then addressing the obstacles in your organization, and using a few new strategies, should help increase effectiveness in recruiting diverse candidates.

Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe are partners in the management consulting firm of Gardenswartz & Rowe of Los Angeles.

CEOs and CFOs Register Record Pessimism on Economy

3/19/2009  By Maria Williams 
 
 

Two recent surveys from two different sources—one polling chief financial officers (CFOs) and the other chief executive officers (CEOs)—revealed record-breaking pessimism about the economy. In the most recent Duke University/CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook Survey, U.S. and foreign CFOs rated the economic outlook at a 40 on a scale of 1 to 100—a low in the history of the survey, which has been conducted for 52 consecutive quarters. Showing parallel grim results, the Chief Executive magazine's CEO Confidence Index reported that a stunning 95 percent of U.S. CEOs described current business and employment conditions as “bad,” which is the highest percentage of CEOs who have expressed such pessimism since polling began in October 2002.

The February 2009 CEO Index findings come from the most recent monthly e-mailed survey, to which 371 Chief Executive magazine subscribers responded.

The CFO findings, dated Feb. 27, 2009, asked 1,268 CFOs from a broad range of global public and private companies about their expectations for the economy.

Obama’s Honeymoon: Over Before It Began?

CEO findings. According to Chief Executive magazine's CEO Index, U.S. CEOs are already souring on President Barack Obama’s stimulus efforts.

CEOs expressed anger toward the finance executives receiving bailout money. Asked to weigh in on Obama's cap on executive compensation for the companies receiving Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) funds, 53 percent of CEOs favored caps on executive pay.

"You don't give the captain of the Titanic a bonus for hitting an iceberg and causing the ship to drown. CEOs receiving bailout money for their sinking ships should be held to the same standard," said John Chirikas, CEO of Horizon Steel Co., in a press statement. "The interference from government is alarming, but frankly, it is a direct result of the terrible mismanagement by the financial community and, sadly, will have severe ramifications for all of us."

Yet, despite favoring executive pay caps, 45 percent of CEOs polled said the executive caps would negatively affect or significantly negatively affect the performance of the companies receiving TARP funds, while only 20 percent of CEOs said the caps would have positive or significantly positive effects. Thirty-one percent of CEOs said the pay caps would have no effect on how well the companies performed.

CFO findings. The president’s stimulus plan hasn’t calmed CFOs' fears any more than it has reassured CEOs. Regarding the economy, their third largest external concern (after consumer demand and consumer markets/interest rates) is about the new administration and Congress. Roughly 32 percent of CFOs said that the economic stimulus actions taken to date have helped the economy, which matches the 32 percent who said the economy is worse off because of the stimulus actions. One-third said the stimulus efforts had no effect. More than half (53 percent) of CFOs said their companies would fare worse with a national health care system, compared to only 19 percent who said their businesses would benefit from such a system.

General Pessimism

CEO findings. With the exception of brief partial rebounds in August 2008 and January 2009, the CEO Confidence Index, which measures overall confidence in the market, has been hitting new “historic lows” since July 2008, when the index dipped to 92.6. (The index started at 100 points in 2002, when it was first tallied.) The CEO Confidence Index equals the average of its sub indexes: current confidence, future confidence, investment confidence and employment confidence.
Index.

Index

February 2009

January 2009

Monthly Change

CEO Confidence Index

39.2

51.2

-12

Current Confidence Index

49.1

62

-12.9

Future Confidence Index

15.9

27

-11.1

Investment Confidence Index

71.7

84.4

-12.7

Employment Confidence Index

23.1

35.3

-12.2


CFO findings. More than two-thirds of U.S. CFOs grew more pessimistic about the U.S. economy during the last quarter covered by the survey (December 2008¬¬-February 2009). On a scale of 0 to 100, U.S. CFOs placed the economic outlook at an all-time low of 40, and their European and Asian counterparts were likewise grim, rating their economies at 43 and 47, respectively.

“This is very troubling,” said Kate O’Sullivan, senior writer at CFO Magazine in a statement. “Throughout the history of our survey, CFOs have shown a remarkable ability to predict future economic conditions. They anticipated the current recession as far back as September 2007. Given the CFOs’ track record, the historic pessimism CFOs are currently expressing certainly indicates a tough road ahead in 2009.”

According with their overall pessimism, in all of their respective regions, U.S., European and Asian CFOs expect earnings, capital spending and tech spending to fall. Earnings are expected to drop by 22 percent at U.S. public companies, 11 percent in Europe and 9 percent in Asia. Capital spending is expected to decline 13 percent in the United States, 16 percent in Europe and 9 percent in Asia. Tech spending is expected to diminish by about 6 percent in all regions, and marketing and advertising spending is expected to drop by more than 7 percent in all regions.

The Outlook

CEO findings. Over the next quarter, 69 percent expect the economy to worsen, and 77 percent expect unemployment to rise. Each of these statistics on future confidence marks the second worst rating in its area since the CEO Index polling began. The worst rating for future confidence in the economy was set in December 2008, and the worst rating for future confidence in employment was set in November 2008.

"These low levels of confidence are unprecedented," said J.P. Donlon, editor-in-chief of Chief Executive magazine. "Not only are CEOs strongly bearish, they do not expect a turnaround anytime soon."

CFO findings. CFOs don’t anticipate things getting any better any time soon either: A mere 35 percent of CFOs expect the U.S. economic recovery to begin in 2009. Most U.S. CFOs expect recovery to begin in 14 months; most European CFOs expect 16 months until recovery begins; and most Asian CFOs expect 13 months.

Maria Williams is a staff writer for SHRM Online.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Staffing Industry Analysts Cites Top 20 Industries for Job Growth

LOS ALTOS, Calif., March 3, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Federal Government, Coal Mining and Hospitals all have seen unprecedented growth in the last twelve months according to a new report being published this month by Staffing Industry Analysts, the premier provider of market intelligence about the contingent workforce.

Among the major highlights in Staffing Industry Analysts' Where Employment is Still Booming report is the fact that there is high demand for workers in a number of different industries, in spite of the economic downturn we are all experiencing.

"From our analysis, during the last 12 months approximately 600,000 jobs were added to the economy in these high growth sectors," stated Jon Osborne, Director of Research, Staffing Industry Analysts. "Staffing Industry Analysts does research and analysis on the temporary labor market, however we thought it was important to highlight the growth in the traditional employment market. Temporary staffing is the biggest loser in terms of employment. Temporary labor has lost more than 500,000 jobs in the last twelve-months," Osborne went on to say.

Industries with high demand include:

1. Federal Government     
2. Coal Mining
3. Hospitals
4. Educational Services     
5. Offices of Physicians     
6. Home Health Care     
7. Other Ambulatory Health Care     
8. Pipeline Transportation     
9. Other Social Assistance     
10. Mental Health, Elderly Community and     Other Residential Care Facilities

(source:marketwatch.com)

Staffing Industry Analysts Cites Top 20 Industries for Job Growth

LOS ALTOS, Calif., March 3, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Federal Government, Coal Mining and Hospitals all have seen unprecedented growth in the last twelve months according to a new report being published this month by Staffing Industry Analysts, the premier provider of market intelligence about the contingent workforce.
Among the major highlights in Staffing Industry Analysts' Where Employment is Still Booming report is the fact that there is high demand for workers in a number of different industries, in spite of the economic downturn we are all experiencing.
"From our analysis, during the last 12 months approximately 600,000 jobs were added to the economy in these high growth sectors," stated Jon Osborne, Director of Research, Staffing Industry Analysts. "Staffing Industry Analysts does research and analysis on the temporary labor market, however we thought it was important to highlight the growth in the traditional employment market. Temporary staffing is the biggest loser in terms of employment. Temporary labor has lost more than 500,000 jobs in the last twelve-months," Osborne went on to say.
Industries with high demand include:
    1. Federal Government     2. Coal Mining     3. Hospitals     4. Educational Services     5. Offices of Physicians     6. Home Health Care     7. Other Ambulatory Health Care     8. Pipeline Transportation     9. Other Social Assistance     10. Mental Health, Elderly Community and Other Residential Care Facilities
(source:marketwatch.com)