employment

Study: Black workers in public sector hit hardest by job loss during the recession

kkrisberg — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:32:09 +0000

Study: Black workers in public sector hit hardest by job loss during the recession

Sociologist Jennifer Laird was researching unemployment among Mexican immigrants when she came upon some interesting numbers on black workers in the public sector and employment effects of the Great Recession. It piqued her interest and so she decided to keep digging.

She found that while public sector employment had long served as a source of stable employment among black Americans, often enabling mobility into the middle class, downsizing during the Great Recession disproportionately hurt black workers and resulted in greater racial disparities in the public sector. Specifically, Laird, a PhD candidate at the University of Washington, found that black public sector workers were more likely to become unemployed than their white or Hispanic counterparts. And even though blacks are considered over-represented in the public sector from a purely statistical viewpoint and relative to overall population numbers — and so they would naturally be more affected by public spending cuts — Laird still found that black public sector employees lost their jobs at a higher rate than their white counterparts.

“It’s not just that unemployment rates were higher,” Laird told me. “It’s that these were really good jobs with really transparent promotion ladders that were high-paying relative to the private sector, so it has direct implications for the black middle class and upward mobility for black workers.”

To conduct the study, Laird used Current Population Survey data between 2003 and 2013 to examine changes in public sector employment. Among her many findings, Laird discovered that black women experienced a particularly strong impact — the black-white employment gap for women increased almost sixfold during the years following the recession, growing from less than a percentage point in 2008 to more than 5 percentage points in 2011. And even after public sector employment for black men returned to their pre-recession levels in 2013, public sector employment among black women was more than 4 percentage points lower than it was in 2008.

“I was surprised to the extent that the public sector wasn’t operating the way we assumed it would,” Laird said. “I had always assumed that public sector employment provided a certain amount of protection, so it was surprising to see how (black employment) fell, particularly for black women.”

The study also found that among unemployed public sector workers, black women were the least likely to find private sector employment and most likely to exit the labor market. Laird, who presented her findings during the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting earlier this month, writes:

My results point to a post-recession double disadvantage for black public sector women: they are concentrated in a shrinking sector of the economy, and they are substantially more likely than other public sector workers to be without work. These two trends are a historical break for the public sector labor market. Among public sector workers, black women are the most likely to enter unemployment and the most likely to exit the labor force. I find that race gaps in public sector employment cannot be explained by differences in education, occupation, or any of the other measurable factors that are typically associated with employment.

Traditionally, working in the public sector is thought to have a protective effect on employment. But Laird found that protective effect “decreased substantially” for black workers, and especially for black women, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, even while white workers remained relatively insulated from job cuts. The data Laird used in her study doesn’t point to the reasons why black workers were hit disproportionately by recession-related job cuts. However, she had a few educated guesses.

She told me that in some instances, the rapid pace of public sector reforms might have contributed. In other words, if public sector management was under extreme pressure to reduce the size of their workforces quickly, layoffs might not have happened in the fairest manner.

For example, in the study, Laird points to Wisconsin, which enacted “sharp and immediate” budget cuts for municipalities in 2011. In the aftermath of such cuts, public sector employment among black residents in Wisconsin continued to decline into 2012, while such employment was rebounding in other states. Laird also hypothesized that as public sector jobs were eliminated and then recreated, jobs that had previously only required a high school education might have now demanded college degrees — “the reclassification of jobs could have had unintended consequences,” she said.

Overall, Laird told me the big takeaway from her study is that cuts in public spending and their related effects on public employment can have inadvertent consequences for certain populations. In turn, she hopes her study will encourage decision-makers to carefully consider how changes in public sector spending affect different communities.

In conclusion, her study suggested “that without a course correction, further efforts to dismantle the public sector will most likely have a negative effect on the workers who have historically gained the most from public sector employment.”

For a full copy of Laird’s study, visit http://students.washington.edu/jdlaird.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Fri, 08/28/2015 - 13:32

Tags

education

government

Public Health - General

public sector employment

public sector workers

education

Research

women's health

New report: No evidence that the Affordable Care Act is a ‘job killer’

kkrisberg — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:49:57 +0000

New report: No evidence that the Affordable Care Act is a ‘job killer’

One of the big criticisms that opponents of the Affordable Care Act love to trot out is its impact on the economy — one phrase you often hear is “job killer.” In fact, in 2011, Republicans in the House actually introduced legislation officially titled “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.” That bill didn’t make it far. However, a new report finds that “job-killing” isn’t just hyperbole; it’s just plain wrong.

Earlier this month, the Urban Institute released a new report on the ACA and employment, asking “Has the ACA been a job killer?” Authors Bowen Garrett and Robert Kaestner noted that the health reform law does contain several measures that could impact the labor market. For example, requiring employers with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance or face penalties could have encouraged employers to reduce employee hours so that they were exempt from the insurance mandate. Another theory was that expanding Medicaid eligibility and offering income-based subsidies through the new health insurance marketplace would incentivize some workers to reduce their work hours or stop working altogether.

To find out whether such job-killing theories came to fruition, the researchers analyzed the effects of the ACA as of 2014, focusing on four outcomes: labor force participation, employment, part-time employment and the usual number of hours worked per week among workers. Their overall finding: The ACA had “virtually no adverse effect” on the labor market. The researchers write:

Full implementation (of the ACA) may have different effects on the labor market… But much of the ACA has been implemented, including all of its coverage provisions, and an estimated 14 to 15 million persons have gained insurance following the implementation of the new marketplaces and the Medicaid expansions. Any workers who were primarily working to obtain health benefits should have been the first to reduce their hours or drop out of the labor market in 2014. It is reasonable to argue that if the ACA were going to have a substantial adverse effect when fully implemented, then we should have seen some evidence of it already happening in 2014 because a substantial portion of the ACA was in effect. The results presented here show little if any early indication of the large labor market effects some have predicted, which casts doubt on whether these predictions will come to fruition in the coming years.

Using data from the Current Population Survey from January 2000 to December 2014, researchers found that among nonelderly adults with a high school education or less, employment in 2014 was 1.8 percentage points higher than what would have been expected based on unemployment and demographic trends. (Note: It’s this particular group of adults that some predicted would be most negatively impacted by the ACA, as lower-wage jobs don’t typically come with insurance benefits and so opponents predicted employers would look for ways to sidestep ACA mandates.) Among that same group of adults, part-time employment was 0.5 percentage points higher than what would have been expected — this finding aligns with predictions that employers would reduce worker hours to avoid requirements that they provide insurance (the ACA defines 30 hours a week as full time).

But in reference to the slight bump in part-time work, the authors noted that “the difference is sufficiently small, however, that we find no evidence of a change in the number of hours worked in 2014 and thus no overall change in labor supply beyond what would be expected.” In other words, they found that when it came to the usual hours worked per week, the actual and expected numbers for 2014 were just about identical. When it came to the Medicaid eligibility expansion for low-income adults, which only about half the states decided to take advantage of, the report again found “virtually no effect” on the labor market. In examining data on nonelderly adults with a high school education or less, researchers found that the expansion had no effect on labor force participation and no statistically significant effect on part-time employment.

“The results show that overall, there is nothing particularly unusual about labor market outcomes in 2014 that would suggest that the ACA has had much, if any, effect,” write Garrett and Kaestner. “Importantly, our analysis can identify relatively small effects, so it is not the case that there were potentially large effects that we could not detect.”

To download a full copy of “Recent Evidence on the ACA and Employment: Has the ACA Been a Job Killer?” visit the Urban Institute.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Tue, 08/11/2015 - 12:49

Tags

Public Health - General

This all sounds good, but go try and find a FULL TIME job as a millennial or x-gen. Extremely difficult. Banks, grocery, pet stores, retailers...they all cut hours to 30 or less.
Sure, employment is level, but having 3 part time jobs is not the same as a full time job. This data glosses over the reality. From California to Nevada to Wyoming, the problem is the same. Good luck in finding a full-time job. In Southern California, if you're under 30, good luck in finding a part time job that leads to full time work. The part time job market is saturated, but that type of work always keeps you dependent.
Plenty of employers I know have done just that, in multiple states - cut all workers to 30 hours or less. It's a no brainer. Of course they'll do it and it's happened.
Look at statistics all you like, but does someone working 4 jobs at 10 hours a week count as "employed"? Technically, yes. According to the above, you're technically working. But you have to manage 4 jobs to make up for the 1 lost real full time job.
Sorry, but all the articles about the ACA don't talk about full time jobs, they just say someone is earning some money and counting that as employed.
The gap is unbridgeable.

Another Bad Side Effect of Employer-Based Insurance

lborkowski — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:27:11 +0000

Another Bad Side Effect of Employer-Based Insurance

A.G. Sulzberger reports in the New York Times about a new practice by some employers: refusing to hire smokers:

More hospitals and medical businesses in many states are adopting strict policies that make smoking a reason to turn away job applicants, saying they want to increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.

The policies reflect a frustration that softer efforts -- like banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs and increasing health care premiums for smokers -- have not been powerful-enough incentives to quit.

The new rules essentially treat cigarettes like an illegal narcotic. Applications now explicitly warn of "tobacco-free hiring," job seekers must submit to urine tests for nicotine and new employees caught smoking face termination.

I have to side with Boston University School of Public Health's Dr. Michael Siegel, who points out, "Unemployment is also bad for health." Smokers denied jobs based on their tobacco use are likely to feel hopeless and unlikely to have the employer-sponsored health insurance that might provide them with quitting help - hardly a recipe for successful smoking cessation. Still, this is a rational response by employers who sponsor their workers' health insurance and see costs increase when their employees use lots of healthcare. It just doesn't sound like something that'll be good for the population's overall health.

If the Affordable Care Act's ultimate impact is that most under-65 people get their insurance through health insurance exchanges rather than employers, then employers can base their hiring decisions on candidates' abilities rather than their anticipated healthcare costs. And if insurers expect their plan members to keep the same insurance for longer than they keep their jobs, they might be more motivated to offer counseling, patches, and other assistance to help smokers quit.

lborkowski Fri, 02/11/2011 - 09:27

Tags

healthcare

tobacco

employer-sponsored insurance

I don't know what percentage of plans don't cover smoking cessation, but I know that at least one large BC/BS doesn't.

And what's next - alcohol-free employees? BMI limits?

Smoking is bad for business.

Have you ever spent 4 hours inside a 10x10 conference room with 4 people who smoked? I had to tell my boss that I was going to call in to future meetings with that group.

If my insurance goes down, then who cares about the smokers? Smoking is dangerous and I have yet to see someone NOT throw a cigarette butt out their car window.

I can't believe how some people will blindly comply with anything govt. or big business pushes down their willing throats.

Liz, you need to work for more Fortune 100s.

Sure health insurance are removed from the company, but that's not going to stop companies from banning smoking to make the place better for customers, to increase productivity, to reduce cleaning costs, etc.

And if you compare it to the gun groups, I think Americans will come to have a legitimate fear of the US Fed banning smoking to reduce taxpayer health care costs.

In fact, I'm pretty sure taxpayers that don't smoke like me are going to want to ban smoking because why should I pay for your smoking, fucking, drinking, speeding, gambling sins and addictions.

What I don't understand Liz, is why we don't hear more arguments that to make American competitive, we have to allow US companies to compete on the same cost structure as the rest of the world.

That means universal taxpayer health care, not employer healthcare.

As a couple of people have pointed out, smokers can cause other problems that aren't related to healthcare, like bringing the smell of cigarettes indoors with them. I wouldn't assume that all smokers are so inconsiderate, though - I know some who make a point of spending a few extra minutes outside, stopping in the bathroom to use mouthwash, etc. after smoking a cigarette to get rid of the smell.

And as for competing with countries that offer universal healthcare, that's definitely an issue, and one I wish our lawmakers would pay attention to - but the only competition I hear politicians talking about these days is with China.

Bad said, Bad said, it always happen. Refusing to hire smokers? 8 out of 10 are smoker, ok, your company no more workers.

So when will they be hiring people based on weight? Being overweight is just as dangerous as smoking: do I not get the job because I'm carrying extra pounds and possibly subjecting my employer to medical bills related to diabetes, heart disease, etc?

I don't care for smokers but if that's going to be the reason not to hire someone, it needs to be fairly enforced.

"So when will they be hiring people based on weight? Being overweight is just as dangerous as smoking"

Unless I can catch fat off someone, no.

Unless I can become physically addicted to fat, no.

PS the other option would be to ban cigarettes completely.

"So when will they be hiring people based on weight? Being overweight is just as dangerous as smoking"

"Unless I can catch fat off someone, no. Unless I can become physically addicted to fat, no."

Hm. I think you're missing the point of my comment. I'm not talking about smoking's effect on others, I'm talking about hiring practices in light of insurance bills. If employers are looking at a person's health (smoker? gonna cost me $ in ins) they should also look at a person's weight. In fact, if they're not going to hire people because they smoke and they cite health reasons for that, what about people who like to ski? Or have kids on the cheer leading squad? These are dangerous activities that could cost employers and insurance companies plenty. Where do you draw the line?

"I'm not talking about smoking's effect on others, I'm talking about hiring practices in light of insurance bills."

That isn't really all that obvious from your statement.

Problem here is that you're fat whether you're eating at work or not. There are a lot of fat people. So when you haven't enough workers (because you discard the fat ones), the supply of workers is less than the demand. And therefore your payroll goes up even as your worker count goes down.

You can exist for years without management.

Try living as a company beyond the end of the current warehouse stock without workers.

So no. This isn't going to happen.

PS why must there always be a line drawn? There are two extremes that are obvious and a large area in the middle where you can go either way. No line.

I'm hoping there's a solution to all this mess. If people can just grab insurance from the new exchange pool I think that would be great.

I don't believe in smoking in the workplace. I live in Ohio and they passed a state law which prohibits smoking in any business now.

I also don't think it's fair to non smokers if the smokers are pushing premiums up in an organization. Say 50% of the workforce smokes and their claims spike through the year, the non smokers are also going to take a hit for their actions. All the premiums would rise leaving the employer to probably hand the cost down to the employees rising the employee contributions on the health plan.

I think the solution is universal healthcare, Joe.

A productive worker killed by cancer in their prime is a drain on the public.

a) they no longer produce anything
b) their family is now having to claim public charity
c) being that much poorer, the children are not going to succeed and become productive

so the "it will cost us" mantra is bollocks because it costs if you throw the ill to the wolves. And it's inhumane.

Why sell people's lives in the first place?

So pay for healthcare because it's the right thing to do (the christian thing, if you're wanting to persuade teaparty/republicans). That it will cost people innocent of wrongdoing is not a counter because if you're going that route of spending people's lives, it costs either way.

Then, if this drain on the public looking after smokers REALLY IS an economic problem: REMOVE THE TOBACCO. Make it illegal. Arrestable offence to smoke or possess tobacco products. And for those currently addicted, help them lose the addiction.

The problem is that the economic issue is a smokescreen (pardon the pun) because there's money to be made in the addiction, if only you can offload the consequences onto other people.

Whatever smoking make "cost the public" in terms of health care is compensated for by the increased amount of money gained by the taxation of cigarettes. One thing people don't realize is that if/when cigarettes go away or become illegal, the government (state and federal) will have to troll for it elsewhere. Whenever someone lights up, remember your tax burden is less because of it.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17170991/ns/business-us_business/

In case someone asks me for citations in my above comment...

I appreciate smokers who try to be considerate: smoking outside, and far enough from doorways that people can enter and exit without passing through a cloud of fumes; disposing of their butts properly; using mouthwash.

But the fact is, I can smell smokers coming. I remember one memorable case where I was facing away from someone coming down a hallway. I was hit first by smell of stale cigarettes that had permeated their hair and clothing, and then by the overwhelming fragrance that the person doubtless thought was hiding it. And then a couple seconds later, I actually saw the person pass by me.

The hallway was outside a cardiac unit. I sure hope that person didn't live with whoever they were visiting.

That smell that clings to smoky clothes and furniture seems to be toxic itself.

That said, I don't think it actually helps anybody quit to not hire smokers. But I don't see any reason why smoking urine tests are any more invasive than the other drugs tests, particularly when you consider that those have high false positive rates, no real oversight, and can pick up on legally prescribed medications or poppy seed bagels.

I know of small companies that refuse to hire people who use fragrances because they have workers (or owners) who are sensitive to them. I think they should be able to use the same reasoning if they have employees who are sensitive to smoke.

"Whatever smoking make "cost the public" in terms of health care is compensated for by the increased amount of money gained by the taxation of cigarettes."

Really? Done the figures?

You need to include the loss of a trained adult who can no longer make a return on the time and money invested in training them.

Give me cigarettes or give me death!!

They'll have to pry my cigarettes from my cold, dead, umm ok then.

Funnily enough, if I recall correctly (and my memory is really foggy on this point), smoking is already listed in Oregon's labor laws as an illegal cause for job discrimination... right up there with gender and race.

Late For Work

grrlscientist — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:59:19 +0000

Late For Work

tags: Late For Work, jobs, employment, humor, funny, comedy, fucking hilarious, social observation, streaming video

It's hot, you were up late drinking with your friends and now it's Monday morning -- again! Unlike some videos that I share with you, this one gets straight to the point -- a point that we've all achieved at some time during our lives.

grrlscientist Sun, 07/18/2010 - 23:59

Tags

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. that's me, every day!

hahah its so accurate

Happiest DJ On Earth

grrlscientist — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:59:44 +0000

Happiest DJ On Earth

tags: Happiest DJ On Earth, jobs, employment, humor, funny, comedy, disc jockey, David Guetta, streaming video

Some people have jobs they love, and then there's this guy ... he's burning off more calories doing his job than most people burn at the gym!

grrlscientist Mon, 07/12/2010 - 23:59

Tags

Can someone please id the second song?
I suddenly felt like dancing.

@another happy:

The song is "Memories", by David Guetta.

DJing sitting down? With a Laptop? Blaspheme!

Gay

Orientation Day in the MSM

grrlscientist — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 04:59:53 +0000

Orientation Day in the MSM

tags: Orientation Day in the MSM, journalism, mainstream media, humor, streaming video

This video is a rather .. interesting ... look at the challenges of working as a journalist in the mainstream media in these technologically challenging days.

grrlscientist Mon, 07/12/2010 - 00:59

Tags

Orientation Day in the MSM

So sad, so true, and so funny (albeit in a dark humor sort of way). And that's why I get my news from blogs, where people are open about being biased!

with rare exceptions, i think that "lack of bias" also means "lack of (com)passion" about a particular story, which means the desire to get to the heart of the truth is probably lacking as well.

Sounds like every single corporation in existence.

"How to grovel for a meager existence by lying to yourself about a job where the company lies to itself."

Hey, I think I'm going to go incorporate myself so I can get some of my rights as a person back...also, if somebody sues me, I'll be a corporation against an individual person...the Roberts court will back me up every time!

Science and the Importance of Cheese

grrlscientist — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:59:33 +0000

Science and the Importance of Cheese

tags: I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here!, internet chatrooms, online program, technology, public outreach, scientists, employment, what do scientists do?, Science and the Importance of Cheese, streaming video

This video is a trailer for a movie proposal by protein crystallographer, Stephen Curry. If he is lucky, he will continue on to the June 2010 rounds of the online program, "I'm a scientist, get me out of here!" targeted at teens. He proposes to make this film if he is voted to win the â¤500 award.

"I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here!" is a new online program targeted to UK teenagers. This program's goals are to provide teens access to real scientists, to provide them the opportunity to get beyond stereotypes about scientists, to learn how science relates to real life and to provide the scientists with feedback on their communication style -- can the scientists explain their work to teenagers? Hundreds of teens ask the scientists questions online about what they do, and they vote for the scientist they want to win â¤500. Stephen Curry, who also was one of the hosts for Scientia Pro Publica, is one of the scientists, and here is his blog entry explaining this stage of the competition.

grrlscientist Mon, 06/21/2010 - 00:59

Using Science to Create the Ultimate Chocolate Bar

grrlscientist — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:59:50 +0000

Using Science to Create the Ultimate Chocolate Bar

tags: Using Science to Create the Ultimate Chocolate Bar, Theo Chocolate Company, Seattle, organic chocolate, fair-trade chocolate, Doc Choc, Andy McShea, streaming video

Harvard-trained molecular biologist Andy McShea takes a distinctly scientific approach to making better and healthier chocolate. Dr McShea, known as "Doc Choc," is the Chief Operating Officer of the 4-year-old Theo Chocolate company, which he describes as the fastest-growing organic, fair-trade chocolate producer in the United States.

Visit Theo Chocolate Company or read more about it in TheScientist's Dr. Chocolate [sign-in required, but content is free]

grrlscientist Mon, 06/14/2010 - 00:59

Tags

Theo Chocolate Company

Using Science to Create the Ultimate Chocolate Bar

I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here!

grrlscientist — Mon, 31 May 2010 04:59:25 +0000

I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here!

tags: I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here!, internet chatrooms, online program, technology, public outreach, scientists, employment, what do scientists do?, teenagers, streaming video

This video describes a new online program targeted to UK teenagers; "I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here!" This program's goals are to provide teens access to real scientists, to provide them the opportunity to get beyond stereotypes about scientists, to learn how science relates to real life and to provide the scientists with feedback on their communication style -- can they explain their work to teenagers? Hundreds of teens ask the scientists questions online about what they do, and they vote for the scientist they want to win â¤500. Added smugpoints: a Nature Network colleague of mine, Stephen Curry, who also was one of the hosts for Scientia Pro Publica, has volunteered!

Find out more.

Scientists who take part :
*Have fun!
*Inspire and engage young people
*Develop their communication skills (there's nothing like a chatroom full of teenagers to give you instant feedback on whether the way you explain your work makes any sense)

The next event will be 14-25th June.

You can read more about what teachers, students and scientists thought about the pilot in this report [free PDF].

If you are a teacher and wish to give your students an introduction to the program, this video is for you:

grrlscientist Mon, 05/31/2010 - 00:59

Oh wow, thanks for featuring our event, GrrlScientist! I'm glad you like it:-)

I'd add that anyone can access the website and read the questions scientists are asked and the answers they give. So you're all welcome to come and have a look! Although only students from participating schools can actually ASK questions.

And of course it's too late to sign up for the next event, but teachers and scientists can sign up for next year from the 'Find out more' link above.

Also, you can follow us on twitter at http://twitter.com/imascientist
Or follow the list of participants in the June event at http://twitter.com/imascientist/ias2010-june

Stevie the Professional Regurgitator

grrlscientist — Wed, 26 May 2010 04:59:19 +0000

Stevie the Professional Regurgitator

tags: Stevie the Professional Regurgitator, jobs, hobbies, passtimes, offbeat, strange, funny, people, The Tonight Show, streaming video

This man makes a living by swallowing strange objects, like light bulbs, and then vomiting them back up. I think at least a few of these stunts are illusions -- how did he do the sugar trick, for example? -- while other stunts (the fish trick) are really just gross.

Okay, how the heck did he do the sugar trick? And the fish trick? [and tell me, what does HSUS say about this fish trick?? or are they too busy writing legislation to outlaw people's pets to protest this?]

grrlscientist Wed, 05/26/2010 - 00:59