Tuesday, May 15, 2012

[IWS] CRS: OUTSOURCING AND INSOURCING JOBS IN THE U.S. ECONOMY: EVIDENCE BASED ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT DATA [10 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

Outsourcing and Insourcing Jobs in the U.S. Economy: Evidence Based on Foreign Investment Data

James K. Jackson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

May 10, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32461.pdf

[full-text, 47 pages]

 

 

Summary

The impact of foreign direct investment on U.S. employment is provoking a national debate.

While local communities compete with one another for investment projects, many of the residents

of those communities fear losing their jobs as U.S. companies seek out foreign locations and

foreign workers to perform work that traditionally has been done in the United States, generally

referred to as outsourcing. Some observers suggest that current U.S. experiences with outsourcing

are different from those that have preceded them and that this merits legislative actions by

Congress to blunt the economic impact of these activities. Other observers argue that investing

abroad by U.S. multinational companies impedes the growth of new jobs in the economy and

thwarts the nation’s investments in high technology sectors. Some opponents also argue that midcareer

workers who lose good-paying manufacturing and service-sector jobs likely will never

recover their standard of living.

 

Economists and others generally argue that free and unimpeded international flows of capital

have a positive impact on both domestic and foreign economies. Direct investment is unique

among international capital flows because it adds permanently to the capital stock and skill set of

a nation, but it also challenges the general theory of capital flows because of the presence of

strong cross-border and intra-industry investment. Supporters contend that to the extent that

foreign investment shifts jobs abroad, it is a minor component of the overall economic picture and

that it is offset somewhat by the investment of foreign firms in the U.S. economy (referred to as

insourcing), which supports existing jobs and creates new jobs in the economy.

 

Broad, comprehensive data on U.S. multinational companies generally lag behind current events

by two years and were not developed to address the issue of jobs outsourcing. Many economists

argue, however, that there is little evidence to date to support the notion that the overseas

investment activities of U.S. multinational companies play a significant role in the rate at which

jobs are created in the U.S. economy. Instead, they argue that the source of job creation in the

economy is rooted in the combination of macroeconomic policies the nation has chosen, the rate

of productivity growth, and the availability of resources. This report addresses these issues by

analyzing the extent of direct investment into and out of the economy, the role such investment

plays in U.S. trade, jobs, and production, and the relationship between direct investment and the

broader economic changes that are occurring in the U.S. economy.

 

Contents

Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1

U.S. and Foreign Multinational Companies .................................................................................... 4

Employment .............................................................................................................................. 6

Employment Trends................................................................................................................. 10

Employment by Sector and Area............................................................................................. 12

Gross Product................................................................................................................................. 16

U.S. Multinational Companies ................................................................................................ 17

Foreign-Owned Firms ............................................................................................................. 19

Cyclical vs. Structural Changes ..................................................................................................... 20

Trade .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Sales............................................................................................................................................... 31

Sales of Services...................................................................................................................... 33

Research and Development ........................................................................................................... 35

Why Firms Invest Abroad.............................................................................................................. 36

Ownership-Specific Advantages.............................................................................................. 38

Location Advantages ............................................................................................................... 39

Commercial Benefits ............................................................................................................... 40

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 41

 

Figures

Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States and U.S. Investment Abroad, Annual Flows 1990-2009 ............................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Inward and Outward Global Direct Investment Position, By Major Area, 2009............. 3

Figure 3. Index of Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, 1992-2008 (1990 = 100)............................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4. Employment of the Foreign Affiliates of U.S. Parent Companies as a Share of the Total Employment of U.S. Multinational Companies, 1985-2008 ....................................... 11

Figure 5. U.S. Direct Investment Position Abroad and Foreign Direct Investment Position in the United States, Cumulative Position by Country, 2009 ..................................................... 14

Figure 6. Employment of U.S. Foreign Affiliates Abroad and Affiliates of Foreign Firms in the U.S., by Country or Region, 2008 .................................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Average Annual Percent Change in Gross Product of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods ........................................................................... 22

Figure 8. Average Annual Percent Change in Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods.................................................................................. 24

Figure 9. Average Annual Percent Change in Manufacturing Gross Product of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods ........................................................ 25

Figure 10. Average Annual Percent Change in Manufacturing Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Periods ........................................................ 26

Figure 11. Intra-Firm MNC Trade as a Share of Total U.S. Exports and Imports, 1990-2008 ............................................................................................................................................ 29

 

Tables

Table 1. Global Annual Inflows of Foreign Direct Investment, By Major Area.............................. 4

Table 2. Select Data on U.S. Multinational Companies and on Foreign Firms Operating in the United States, 2008................................................................................................................. 5

Table 3. Gross Product and Manufacturing Gross Product by U.S. Multinational Companies, 1994-2008................................................................................................................. 6

Table 4. Employment of U.S. Multinational Companies and the Affiliates of Foreign Firms, 1992-2008.......................................................................................................................... 8

Table 5. Employment of Non-Bank U.S. Foreign Affiliates by Major Sector and Area, 2006-2008................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 6. Gross Product of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Majority-Owned Foreign Affiliates ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 7. U.S. Direct Investment Abroad; Investment Outflows for Selected Regions and Countries, 2005-2009 ................................................................................................................. 18

Table 8. Average Annual Percent Change in Gross Product and Employment of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Selected Industries, Selected Periods............. 23

Table 9. Changes in Gross Product and Employment Among U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates for Selected Industries ......................................................................... 27

Table 10. Multinational Corporations’ Intra-Firm Exports of U.S. Goods, 1992-2007................. 30

Table 11. Multinational Corporations’ Intra-Firm Imports of U.S. Goods, 1992-2008................. 31

Table 12. Sales of Goods and Services by U.S. Foreign Affiliates by Destination and Industry, 2008 ............................................................................................................................. 32

Table 13. Sales of Services by U.S. Foreign Affiliates by Destination and Industry, 2008........... 34

Table 14. Sales of Services by U.S. Foreign Affiliates, Average Annual Rates of Change for Selected Periods .................................................................................................................... 35

Table 15. Expenditures on Research and Development by U.S. Multinational Firms and by the Affiliates of Foreign Firms Operating in the United States ............................................. 36

 

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 43

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 43

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


[IWS] CRS: FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS [10 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An Economic Analysis

James K. Jackson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

May 10, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21857.pdf

[full-text, 11 pages]

 

Summary

Foreign direct investment in the United States declined sharply after 2000, when a record $300

billion was invested in U.S. businesses and real estate. (Note: The United States defines foreign

direct investment as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person

[individual, branch, partnership, association, government, etc.] of 10% or more of the voting

securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an

unincorporated U.S. business enterprise. 15 CFR ยง806.15 [a][1].) In 2010, according to U.S.

Department of Commerce data, foreigners invested $236 billion in U.S. businesses and real

estate. Foreign direct investments are highly sought after by many state and local governments

that are struggling to create additional jobs in their localities. While some in Congress encourage

such investment to offset the perceived negative economic effects of U.S. firms investing abroad,

others are concerned about foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms that are considered essential to U.S.

national and economic security.

 

Contents

Recent Investments.......................................................................................................................... 1

Acquisitions and Establishments ..................................................................................................... 6

Economic Performance.................................................................................................................... 6

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................... 8

 

Figures

Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States and U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, Annual Flows, 1990-2010................ 1

 

Tables

Table 1. Foreign Direct Investment Position in the United States on a Historical-Cost Basis at Year-End 2010.................... 4

 

Contacts

Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 8

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


Monday, May 14, 2012

[IWS] Harvey Nash: CIO SURVEY 2012 [14 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

Harvey Nash

 

CIO SURVEY 2012 [14 May 2012]

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/

 

Foreward

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/foreword.asp

 

Executive Summary

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/executive_summary.asp

 

[excerpt]

Women in IT

In this new section of the Harvey Nash CIO Survey the role of women in IT departments and the view of the CIO to gender challenges in technology are explored. The male to female ratio in IT leadership remains highly unrepresentative of the population at large – 93 percent of CIOs responding to the survey this year are male – this compares to 92 percent male in the survey population from 2010. Over a third of CIOs (35 percent) confirm there are no women in IT management roles in their organisation. For 46 percent of CIOs less than a quarter of their IT management roles are populated by women. The split of male to female workers is also significantly skewed in technical functions. Almost a quarter of CIOs (24 percent) have no women in their technical teams; for 45 percent of CIOs women only make up about one quarter of their technical team, while for 20 percent of CIOs half their technical team are women.

Non-technical roles such as business analysis and training do have more women represented in IT departments. Six percent of CIOs have non technical teams that are almost exclusively made up of women; 12 percent of CIOs have non technical teams with women in 75 percent of the roles; 35 percent of CIOs have up to half their non technical roles filled by women. Over half of CIOs (51 percent) think relationships between IT and the business improve by hiring more women, and 48 percent believe it enhances team cohesion and morale. However, the vast majority of CIOs think there is no impact on strategy (82 percent) and technical nous (86 percent) from hiring more women into IT.There is a massive 30 percent gap between women CIOs and their male counterparts regarding their view of women ‘getting the job done’ at various levels of the IT team.

However, both male and female CIOs recognise that in the current fast moving environment, where it is very clear that IT departments are increasingly focused on managing business relationships to pursue growth and less on sweating technology assets to deliver efficiency, increasing the proportion of women in the IT team will improve relationships between IT and the rest of the business.

 

Conclusions

http://www.harveynash.com/ciosurvey/conclusions.asp

 

Request for Copy

https://www.formstack.com/forms/?1076312-v84EOCraSO

 

 

Press Release 14 May 2012

CIOs indicate a return to growth and a change in priorities creates new skills challenges - Harvey Nash / TelecityGroup

http://media.harveynash.com/uk/mediacentre/2012/05/cios_indicate_a_return_to_grow.htm

 

 

London, 14th May 2012 - CIOs are more confident of securing technology budget increases than at any time in the last five years, according to the CIO Technology Survey 2012, conducted by Harvey Nash in association with TelecityGroup.

 

[excerpts

Key indicators of growth:

Increasing budgets: 44 percent of global CIOs saw a budget increase this year; the highest proportion since 2007, and a leap from 39 percent in 2011 and 28 percent in 2010.

Leap in demand for digital and mobile solutions: Digital media is firmly on the CIO's agenda with 58 percent of global CIOs actively promoting the development of solutions for smartphones and tablets such as iPads.

Demand for improving time-to-market: Of the areas of focus for CIOs, the category that grew the most in 2012 was Improving Time-to-Market, underlining the importance of growth and expansion planning.

Profit focus: More than half of CIOs (56 percent) say projects that make money from technology rather than save money are the priority.

 

Women in technology and skills shortage

Increased shortages in digital skills: Of all the categories of skills where shortages exist, mobile, security and social media displayed the greatest growth in shortage.

Overall skills shortage grows: Almost half (47 percent) of CIOs believe a skills shortage is preventing them from keeping up with the pace of change.

Gender balance within leadership in the technology sector: 93 percent of CIOs in the Survey are male, virtually unchanged from the 2005 Harvey Nash CIO survey.

Dearth in pipeline of female leadership talent: Over a third of those surveyed confirmed they have no females in technology leadership or management roles in their organisation, and over three-quarters (81 percent) have less than a quarter of management roles populated by women.

Software engineering not seen as attractive to female graduates: almost a quarter of CIOs (24 percent) have no women in their technical and development teams, suggesting more needs to be done to encourage women into IT at an early stage.

 

Outsourcing, role of CIO

Outsourcing plays a bigger role: almost half of the respondents (46 percent) plan to increase their spend on outsourcing this year. This compares to 45 percent in 2011, however, it is 10 percent up on 2010 figures (36 percent).

Multi sourcing in vogue: The use of multi sourcing will increase this year for 43 percent of CIOs, up from 39 percent last year.

 

CIO role is changing and increasing in importance: 52 percent of respondents now sit on their organisation's operational board, up from 50 percent in 2011 and 42 percent in 2010.

Strategic influence of the CIO continues to grow: over two thirds of respondents (68 percent) say the role of the CIO is becoming more strategic in 2012 and this is reflected in the dominance of the CEO as the most likely reporting line for the CIO.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


[IWS] Bacharach Blog: THE KNEE-JERK DICHOTOMY: MANAGEMENT V. LEADERSHIP [11 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

The Bacharach Blog: Leadership--Pragmatic & Proactive
http://sambacharach.com/bacharachblog/

 

 

LEADERSHIP: New Voice, New Insights, RESULTS-ORIENTED

 

The Knee-Jerk Dichotomy: Management v. Leadership

Posted by Samuel B. Bacharach on May 11, 2012 •

http://sambacharach.com/bacharachblog/leader/the-knee-jerk-dichotomy-management-v-leadership/

 

As an academic I love dichotomies. They stretch the imagination, help us avoid subtly, and enhance focused debate.

My conceptual paradise is a 2 x 2 box where two dichotomies are juxtaposed. Are you in this box or that one? Then the game of trying to figure out which box you belong, “Are you in box A or box B?”, “What type of leader are you?” “Are you transformational or transactional?” “Are you inwardly directed or outwardly directed?” “Are you left or right wing?”

Consultants have made a fortune helping people and organizations figure out which box they belong in.

The problem with these dichotomies is that they simplify the world. They give too much credence to clean, conceptual thinking.

Throughout my academic career I’ve taken pride in conceptual thinking and the clarity of constructs, but when you get out in the real world the constructs become a mess and dichotomies become continuums. You’re not one or the other. You are someplace on the continuum. And where you are on the continuum?

It depends on the situation. You may be a transactional leader one day and a transformative leader the next. You may be internally directed one day and externally directed a week from Tuesday.

And then there is what I consider to be the ultimate knee-jerk dichotomy?

Are you a manager or a leader?

I understand how we in academia can afford this luxury. It’s aesthetically pleasing and makes for a clean little world. If nothing else, academia loves cleanliness. But what I’m amazed at is when such a dichotomy is adhered to in the world of practice.

“We’re looking for a leader,” said one HR director in one corporation.

On the same day, in the same corporation, in reference to the same position another HR official told me, “We’re looking for a manager.”

On numerous occasions I’ve heard chief learning officers talk about their training programs and use this distinction, “We don’t need a leadership training program; we need a managerial training program.” Or “We don’t need a managerial training program; we need a leadership training program.”

Nowhere does this occur more than when we deal with high potentials in a corporate setting. They have technical skills, but what do we give them now that they have responsibility for others? Leadership skills or managerial skills?

No, we give them both. We stop with this knee-jerk dichotomy.

The nice thing about being in this point in my career is that I no longer have to indulge in the luxuries of dichotomies. I don’t want to hire managers that can’t lead and leaders that can’t manage.

I want people to both inspire others and implement ideas. I want the movers in organizations to innovate and create, while at the same time be able to figure out how to manage the process of maneuvering from ideas to results.

I want politicians who can inspire during an election, but once elected can manage for results.

Anyone that’s hiring for a responsible position needs someone who can lead and manage.

The very notion of this dichotomy continuing to get knee-jerk recognition in a world demanding agile, flexible, and solution-based companies, and in a world which we want to retain talent and stimulate the commitment of Gen Y this management/leadership distinction is an anachronism.

This dichotomy between leading and managing is an indulgence in simplicity that we can no longer afford. Especially when asking ourselves what core competencies do we need to move in the future?

Train your managers to lead and your leaders to manage.

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


Friday, May 11, 2012

[IWS] CBO: ENERGY SECURITY IN THE UNITED STATES [9 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

 

ENERGY SECURITY IN THE UNITED STATES [9 May 2012]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf

[full-text, 38 pages]

 

InfoGraphic

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43232

or

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43232-infographic-EnergySecurity.pdf

[full-text, 5 pages]

 

Contents

CBO

Summary iv

Energy Security and Its Economic Significance 1

What Is Energy Security? 1

Economic Effects of Disruptions in the Supply of Energy 1

Potential Effects of Disruptions in Key Energy Markets 4

Oil 4

Box 1. Oil Independence and the Worldwide Oil Market 9

Natural Gas 10

Coal 12

Nuclear Power 13

Renewable Sources 13

What Role Can the Government Play in Enhancing Energy Security? 14

Energy Security for Electricity 14

Regional Generation, Spare Capacity, and Flexibility 15

Box 2. Disruptions in the Delivery of Electricity 18

Electricity Pricing and Demand 18

Energy Security for Transportation 19

Box 3. Reduced Vulnerability to High Heating Costs 20

Refinery Capacity 21

Consumer Demand for Oil 21

Policy Options to Dampen the Effects of Disruptions in Oil Supplies 22

Lists of Tables and Figures 29

About This Document 30

 

[excerpt]

Energy use is pervasive throughout the U.S. economy. Households and businesses use energy from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power, and renewable sources (such as wind and the sun) to generate electricity, provide transportation, and heat and cool buildings. In 2010, energy consumption represented 8.4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.

 

Disruptions in the supply of commodities used to produce energy tend to raise energy prices, imposing an increased burden on U.S. households and businesses. Disruptions can also reduce the nation’s economic output and thus people’s income. This paper examines energy security in the United States—that is, the ability of U.S. households and businesses to accommodate disruptions of supply in energy markets—and actions that the government could take to reduce the effects of such disruptions.

 

The vulnerability of the U.S. economy to disruptions in the supply of a particular energy source depends on the importance of that energy source to the economy. More than 80 percent of the energy consumed in the United States comes from oil, natural gas, or coal. For each source, several factors determine how vulnerable the nation is to a disruption in its supply:

 

The extent to which disruptions occurring anywhere in the world affect energy costs in the United States,

The likelihood of disruptions and the ability of energy suppliers to respond to disruptions if they occur, and

The ability of energy consumers (including electricity producers, oil refiners, households, and businesses) to shift to other, less expensive sources of energy.

Consumers and the economy are more vulnerable to disruptions in oil markets than they are to disruptions in other energy markets, as shown by a comparison of the two largest energy-consuming sectors of the U.S. economy—transportation and electricity. In particular, transportation is almost exclusively dependent on oil supplied in a global market in which disruptions can cause large price changes. Moreover, consumers have few easy and inexpensive options for switching to other fuels or reducing consumption of transportation fuels. In contrast, electricity can be produced from several sources of energy, all of which are less prone to disruptions, and consumers have more options for reducing demand for electricity.

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


[IWS] EuroStat: EUROPE IN FIGURES--EuroStat YEARBOOK 2012 & OTHER YEARBOOKS [11 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

EuroStat

 

EuroStat YEARBOOK 2012 [11 May 2012]

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Eurostat_yearbook

 

 

Europe in figures - Eurostat yearbook [11 May 2012]

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Europe_in_figures_-_Eurostat_yearbook

 

 

Press Release 11 May 2012

Europe in figures – Eurostat yearbook 2012

A gateway to European statistics

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-11052012-AP/EN/1-11052012-AP-EN.PDF

 

 

See OTHER YEARBOOKS at

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Category:Yearbook

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


[IWS] CRS: SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: LEGAL ISSUES [9 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues

Alison M. Smith, Legislative Attorney

May 9, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31994.pdf

[full-text, 35 pages]

 

Summary

The recognition of same-sex marriages generates debate on both the federal and state levels.

Either legislatively or judicially, same-sex marriage is legal in seven states. Other states allow

civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant all or part of state-level rights, benefits, and/or

responsibilities of marriage. Some states have statutes or constitutional amendments limiting

marriage to one man and one woman. These variations raise questions about the validity of such

unions outside the contracted jurisdiction and have bearing on the distribution of federal benefits.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex

marriages and allows individual states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other

states. Section 3 of DOMA requires that marriage, for purposes of federal benefit programs, be

defined as the union of one man and one woman. Lower courts are starting to address DOMA’s

constitutionality. On July 8, 2010, a U.S. district court in Massachusetts found Section 3 of

DOMA unconstitutional in two companion cases brought by same-sex couples married in

Massachusetts. In one case, the court found that DOMA exceeded Congress’s power under the

Spending Clause and violated the Tenth Amendment. In the other, the court held that Congress’s

goal of preserving the status quo did not bear a rational relationship to DOMA, and thus violated

the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. While the government filed a notice of appeal in

these cases, it is unclear whether the cases will continue. In February 2011, the U.S. Attorney

General submitted a letter to congressional leadership stating that the government will not defend

DOMA’s constitutionality under certain conditions. The Assistant Attorney General subsequently

submitted a letter to the First Circuit stating that the government will cease its defense of Section

3 of DOMA. However, the United States will remain a party to the cases presumably to “provide

Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation.”

 

Questions regarding same-sex marriages figure prominently in California. After the state supreme

court’s decision finding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state

constitution, voters approved a constitutional amendment (“Proposition 8”) limiting the validity

and recognition of “marriages” to heterosexual couples. Subsequent court challenges ensued. On

February 7, 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision

finding that Proposition 8 violates both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment, inasmuch as voters took away a right from a minority group without

justification when they approved Proposition 8. In a matter of first impression, the lower court

found that Proposition 8 (1) deprived same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry under

the Due Process Clause and (2) excluded such couples from state-sponsored marriage while

allowing heterosexual couples access in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. While the

appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, it did so on much narrower grounds based on

historical facts specific to California. As such, it appears that this decision will have little, if any,

impact on other jurisdictions. However, the case will likely be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit

or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear whether the Court would accept the case for

review on the merits, as it pertains to an interpretation of a state constitutional amendment.

 

This report discusses DOMA and legal challenges to it. It reviews legal principles applied to

determine the validity of a marriage contracted in another state and surveys the various

approaches employed by states to enable or to prevent same-sex marriage. The report also

examines House and Senate resolutions introduced in previous Congresses proposing a

constitutional amendment and limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear or determine any

question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA.

 

 

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).................................................................................................. 3

Constitutional Challenges to DOMA in Federal Courts .................................................................. 4

Full Faith and Credit Clause...................................................................................................... 5

Equal Protection ........................................................................................................................ 5

Substantive Due Process (Right to Privacy).............................................................................. 7

Tenth Amendment and Spending Power.................................................................................... 7

U.S. Department of Justice Statement and Letter on Litigation Involving the

Constitutionality of DOMA.................................................................................................... 9

Interstate Recognition of Marriage ................................................................................................ 10

Same-Sex Marriage Activity in the States ..................................................................................... 11

State Litigation ........................................................................................................................ 11

Massachusetts.................................................................................................................... 11

“Marriage” Versus Domestic Partnership or Civil Union: Standards of Review.............. 13

California........................................................................................................................... 13

New Jersey ........................................................................................................................ 17

Arizona.............................................................................................................................. 19

State “Civil Union” Laws........................................................................................................ 20

Congressional Activity................................................................................................................... 21

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 22

State Constitutional Amendments Limiting Marriage to a Man and a Woman ............................. 23

Alabama................................................................................................................................... 23

Arkansas .................................................................................................................................. 24

Arizona .................................................................................................................................... 24

California................................................................................................................................. 24

Colorado .................................................................................................................................. 24

Florida ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Georgia .................................................................................................................................... 25

Idaho........................................................................................................................................ 25

Kansas ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Kentucky.................................................................................................................................. 25

Louisiana ................................................................................................................................. 26

Michigan.................................................................................................................................. 26

Mississippi............................................................................................................................... 26

Missouri................................................................................................................................... 26

Montana................................................................................................................................... 26

North Carolina......................................................................................................................... 26

North Dakota ........................................................................................................................... 27

Ohio......................................................................................................................................... 27

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................................ 27

Oregon ..................................................................................................................................... 27

South Carolina......................................................................................................................... 27

South Dakota ........................................................................................................................... 27

Tennessee................................................................................................................................. 28

Texas........................................................................................................................................ 28

Utah ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Virginia .................................................................................................................................... 28

Wisconsin ................................................................................................................................ 28

 

Tables

Table 1. State Statutes Defining “Marriage”.................................................................................. 29

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


[IWS] ADB: AFRICAN & GLOBAL ECONOMIC TRENDS, QUARTERLY STATISTICAL REVIEW, 1ST Qtr, Vol 9 March 30, 2012 [online 10 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

African Development Bank (ADB)

 

African & Global Economic Trends

Quarterly Statistical Review

First Quarter 2012

Volume 9

March 30, 2012

http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/African%20and%20Global%20economic%20Trends%201Q2012.pdf [online 10 May 2012]

[full-text, 17 pages]

 

Contents:

1- World Economy

Economic growth

Inflation – Unemployment

Financial indicators

2- Africa in the World Economy

Economic growth

Focus : Moroccan economy

Merchandise trends in trade

Commodity prices

Inflation and money supply

Exchange rates and equity

markets

3- Annex tables

Africa: Inflation

Africa: Merchandise exports

Africa: International reserves

Africa: Exchange rates

4- Data sources and descriptions

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


[IWS] ECLAC: AGEING, SOLIDARITY AND SOCIAL PROTECTION: TIME TO MOVE TOWARDS EQUALITY [9 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

UN

Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

 

Ageing, Solidarity and Social Protection: Time to Move Towards Equality [9 May 2012]

http://www.cepal.org/celade/noticias/paginas/7/46027/2012-114-CRE-Ingles.pdf

[full-text, 97 pages]—may download slowly

 

Press Release 9 May 2012

The Regional Agenda on Equality Requires the Inclusion of Older Persons in Social Protection Systems

The number of older persons in Latin America will exceed that of children in 2036

http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/prensa/noticias/comunicados/1/46661/P46661.xml&xsl=/prensa/tpl-i/p6f.xsl&base=/prensa/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl

 

(9 May 2012) The decreasing child population and the increasing number of older persons makes it imperative to redesign the way the State, the family and the market ensure welfare and capacity development of the population in Latin America and the Caribbean, as stated in a study published today by ECLAC.

The document Ageing, Solidarity and Social Protection: Time to Move Towards Equality analyzes prospects on population ageing and its inclusion in the public agenda, based on ECLAC's development proposal entitled "Time for Equality".

The report is central to the debates taking place during the Third Regional Intergovernmental Conference on Ageing in Latin America and the Caribbean, being held from 8-11 May in San Jose, Costa Rica, organized by the Government of the country and ECLAC.

The conference was inaugurated last Tuesday by the President of Costa Rica Laura Chinchilla, who stressed the importance for countries of the region to have an agenda on the protection of older persons.

"Through this conference, we are not only honoring the legacy of older persons but also working for the future of our region. The moment to be farsighted, the moment to be socially committed, the moment to do things right is now," said President Chinchilla.

Hugo Beteta, Director of ECLAC's Subregional Headquarters in Mexico, addressed the major demographic change that the region is experiencing, which denotes a new era. "It is paramount to pay more attention to older persons, to their concerns and needs, as well as to the contributions that they can make and must continue to make to our societies," he said.

Beteta also recognized Costa Rica's President's contribution, who personally incorporated social services into the national social protection and ageing agenda. "Your promoting an old persons care network in Costa Rica, by means of the National Council of Older Persons (CONAPAM) in the last two years, has been key for considering this new need a priority issue for public policies in your country," he noted.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean Marcela Suazo said "the governments of the region face the urgent challenge of implementing gradual and efficient reforms to health and education systems, to employment policies, as well as social security systems and non-contributory pensions."

According to the ECLAC document presented today at the conference, it is necessary to reconsider social protection so that it responds immediately to demographic transformations and their impact.

The study, drafted by the Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) - ECLAC's Population Division - adds that older persons should not and can not be excluded from the equality agenda promoted in the region - not only because their relative relevance in the population is rapidly increasing, but also for "satisfying the huge ambition of inclusion and of building more democratic and pluralistic societies".

According to the document, by year 2070, the number of older persons in the region will have increased fourfold. Prospects show that the number of older persons will exceed - for the first time - that of children by year 2036. The group of people over the age of 60 increased from 5.6% of the region's total population in 1950 to 10% in 2010 and it is expected to reach 21% in 2040 and 33% in 2070.

In this report, ECLAC indicates that it is necessary to eliminate the traditional approach to ageing as a problem and to consider it rather an opportunity emerging from the concerted and effective action of public authorities and citizens.

At a regional level, public spending on social security and assistance has increased significantly in the last two decades; nevertheless, only four out of ten Latin Americans over the age of 65 (40%) were receiving pensions or superannuation in 2009, whereas in developed countries this figure accounted for 75% of the population.

The document highlights that reducing inequality in old age is not exclusively linked to superannuation and contributory pensions. For this reason, ECLAC proposes the introduction of a solidarity-based pillar. It also addresses the demand for health care, and the care burden derived from an increasingly ageing population.

Finally, the report takes stock of the progress made on the implementation of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (2002) and the Brasilia Declaration, adopted in 2007 at the Second Regional Intergovernmental Conference on Ageing. This progress includes an increase in the number of countries intending to eliminate age discrimination at work, a better access to social security by means of non-contributory pension programmes for older persons, and their progressive inclusion in health plans and programmes, among others.

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


Thursday, May 10, 2012

[IWS] Census: THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES 2010 [10 May 2012]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

Census

American Community Survey Reports

ACS-19

 

The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2010 [10 May 2012]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf

[full-text, 22 pages]

 

See also

American Community Survey 

Current Population Survey 

 

 

Press Release 10 May 2012
Census Bureau Reports Foreign-Born Households are Larger, Include More Children and Grandparents
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn_population/cb12-79.html

     The U.S. Census Bureau reported today that foreign-born households are, on average, larger than native households, have more children under age 18, and are more likely to be multigenerational.

     The average size of foreign-born households (3.4 people) was larger than that of native-born households (2.5 people). About 62 percent of foreign-born family households included children under 18, compared with 47 percent of native-born households. Multigenerational households, with three or more generations living together, were more common among foreign-born (10 percent) than native-born (5 percent) family households.

     Among the regions of birth, family households with a householder born in Latin America and the Caribbean were the most likely to include children under 18 (70 percent), followed by Africa (67 percent), Oceania (60 percent) and Asia (56 percent). Families with a householder born in Northern America or Europe (both less than 40 percent) were less likely to include children under 18 than native-born households. (Oceania consists of Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia; Northern America consists of Canada, Bermuda, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon.)

     A family household consists of a householder and one or more people living together who are related to the householder by birth, marriage or adoption. About 77 percent of foreign-born households were family households, compared with 65 percent of native-born households.

     These data come from The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2010, a new report about the characteristics of the nation's foreign-born population from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS). The report also examines differences among foreign-born region-of- birth groups on a wide range of topics that include age, sex, marital status, fertility, period of entry into the United States, naturalization and citizenship status, language, education, labor force participation, occupation, health insurance coverage, income and poverty.

     “There is considerable variation among the different foreign-born groups in household type and composition,” said Elizabeth M. Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau's Foreign-Born Population Branch and one of the authors of the report. “This diversity is also seen in the other demographic, social and economic characteristics covered in this report.”

     A sampling of findings from the report includes:

Size and World Region of Birth

     In 2010, the foreign-born population reached about 40 million and represented 13 percent of the nation. Latin America and the Caribbean was the largest region-of-birth group, accounting for more than half (53 percent) of all foreign-born residents. By comparison, 28 percent of the foreign-born population were born in Asia, 12 percent in Europe, 4 percent in Africa, 2 percent in Northern America and less than 1 percent in Oceania.

Period of Entry and Naturalization

     About two-thirds (62 percent) of foreign-born residents came to live in the United States in 1990 or later, including more than one-third (35 percent) who entered in 2000 or later. The majority (78 percent) of the foreign-born population from Africa entered in 1990 or later, including more than half (52 percent) who entered in 2000 or later.

     In 2010, 44 percent of all foreign-born residents were naturalized citizens. Foreign-born residents from Europe (62 percent) and Asia (58 percent) had the highest percent naturalized, while foreign-born residents from Latin America and the Caribbean had the lowest percent (32 percent).

     Of all foreign-born residents who arrived before 1980, 80 percent were U.S. citizens in 2010.

Geographic Distribution

     While foreign-born residents resided in every state, more than half lived in just four states: California (25 percent), New York (11 percent), Texas (10 percent) and Florida (9 percent). More than one in four (27 percent) residents in California were foreign-born.

Marital Status and Fertility

     In 2010, 58 percent of foreign-born residents 15 and older were married, while 26 percent were never married. Native-born residents were less likely to be married (47 percent) and more likely to never have been married (33 percent). Among the regions of birth, foreign-born residents from Asia had the highest proportion married (66 percent) while those from Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean had the lowest (each 54 percent).

     Foreign-born women had a higher fertility rate than native-born women. About 70 of every 1,000 foreign-born women age 15 to 50 had given birth in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared with 52 of every 1,000 native-born women in the same age group. Women age 15 to 50 from Africa had the highest fertility rate among the regions, with 97 births per 1,000 women.

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance

     The median household income of foreign-born households in the year prior to the survey was $46,224, compared with $50,541 for native households. About 19 percent of the foreign-born population were living below the poverty level in the prior year, compared with about 15 percent of native-born.

     About 66 percent of the foreign-born population had health insurance coverage in 2010 compared with 87 percent of the native-born population. Among those with health insurance, 75 percent of the foreign-born and 78 percent of the native-born were covered by a private health insurance provider.

Additional Foreign-Born Reports

     In addition to the report [PDF] released today, the Census Bureau recently released three briefs about the foreign-born population: The Newly Arrived Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 2010 [PDF], The Foreign-Born With Science and Engineering Degrees: 2010 [PDF] and The Foreign Born from Latin America and the Caribbean: 2010 [PDF]. These briefs, based on 2010 American Community Survey results, also provide a look at the differences in the characteristics of the foreign-born. A complete list of all Census Bureau publications on the foreign-born population in the United States is accessible here: <http://www.census.gov/population/foreign/>.

-X-

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?