30704 research outputs found
Sort by
Work-Life Balance and Flexible Working Arrangements in the European Union
Get PDF[Excerpt] The reconciliation of work and life responsibilities has become an increasingly relevant policy topic in recent decades. It has an implicit societal value linked to gender equality and quality of life. It also has an economic dimension, with poor work–life balance clearly hampering participation in the labour market, the latter having been defined as a key objective of the European growth strategy. The female employment rate (20-64 years) is lower than that of men across the European Union (65.3% versus 76.9% in 2016), the gap between men’s and women’s employment rates ranging from 27.6 percentage points in Malta and 20.1 percentage points in Italy at one end to Lithuania and Latvia at the other (where the difference lies at only 1.9 and 2.9 percentage points respectively). The overall cost of this gender employment gap is estimated by Eurofound to represent 2.8% of GDP (Eurofound, 2016b).
Work–life balance covers several aspects of social life and the range of relevant policy fields is exceptionally broad. It includes taxation, not least as regards second family members and various social services, particularly those related to childcare and long-term care. The proposals in the Initiative to support work–life balance for working parents and carers, set out in the Commission Communication of April 2017, were mainly concerned with the relationship between work and care and outlined legislative and non-legislative measures for parents, fathers and carers (European Commission, 2017). It also had proposals to enhance opportunities for flexible work arrangements and this is the focus of the present note.
While flexible working arrangements do not involve any direct additional cost to public budgets in Member States, it may be that if successfully implemented throughout workplaces in the EU they could be a very effective stimulus to work–life balance. While shorter working time and more flexible working arrangements may, in some cases, entail costs for companies, they can also have positive effects on productivity. There are many actors who can actively contribute to achieving more flexible working arrangements. The potential role of the social partners is obvious. But even employers and employees on the ground in the millions of workplaces throughout Europe should be encouraged to examine practical solutions to enhance work–life balance that would suit the specificities of their particular workplace.
Care is a highly gendered issue in terms of care for both children and dependent relatives. Data from the European Working Conditions Survey 2015 (EWCS) show that in every Member State women still have the main caring responsibility (Eurofound, 2016c). They also reveal that the involvement of men in care varies quite considerably across Member States
Human Capital, Local Economic Development, and the Importance of Colleges and Universities
Get PDFIn August 2017, The Worker Institute convened high level leaders over the course of two days, around a discussion of Buffalo, NY Since the Great Recession. With presentations, panels, and a visit to the UAW Local 774, participants gained a deeper understanding of the economic restructuring that followed the Great Recession and where this large metropolitan area stands today. Here, you will find links to the resources that were presented during this two day convening
NAFTA Renegotiation and Modernization
Get PDFThe 115th Congress faces policy issues related to the Trump Administration’s renegotiation and modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA negotiations were first launched in 1992 under President H. W. Bush, who signed the agreement in December 1992, and continued under President Bill Clinton, who negotiated additional side agreements on labor and the environment. President Clinton signed the agreement into law on December 8 1993, (P.L. 103-182) and NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. It is particularly significant because it was the most comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) negotiated at the time, contained several groundbreaking provisions, and was the first of a new generation of U.S. FTAs later negotiated. Congress played a major role during its consideration and, after contentious and comprehensive debate, ultimately approved legislation to implement the agreement.
NAFTA established trade liberalization commitments that set new rules and disciplines for future FTAs on issues important to the United States, including intellectual property rights protection, services trade, dispute settlement procedures, investment, labor, and the environment. NAFTA’s market-opening provisions gradually eliminated nearly all tariff and most nontariff barriers on goods produced and traded within North America. At the time of NAFTA, average applied U.S. duties on imports from Mexico were 2.07%, while U.S. businesses faced average tariffs of 10%, in addition to nontariff and investment barriers, in Mexico. The U.S.-Canada FTA had been in effect since 1989. Trade among NAFTA partners has tripled since the agreement entered into force, forming a more integrated North American market.
The Trump Administration has made NAFTA renegotiation and modernization a prominent initial priority of its trade policy. President Trump has viewed the agreement as the “worst trade deal,” and has stated that he may seek to withdraw from the agreement. He has focused on the trade deficit with Mexico as a major reason for his critique. On May 18, 2017, the Trump Administration sent a 90-day notification to Congress of its intent to begin talks to renegotiate NAFTA, as required by the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) (P.L. 114-26). Negotiations started August 16, 2017. Stating they are committed to an expeditious process, negotiators plan to have a series of seven rounds at three-week intervals for a conclusion by the end of 2017 or early 2018. The fourth round of negotiations began at the time this report was printed. The final text of the agreement will not be released until after negotiations are concluded. NAFTA parties have agreed that the information exchanged in the context of the negotiations, such as the negotiating text, proposals of each government, and other materials related to the substance of the negotiations, must remain confidential.
Congress will likely continue to be a major participant in shaping and potentially considering an updated NAFTA. Key issues for Congress in regard to the renegotiation or modernization include the constitutional authority of Congress over international trade, its role in revising or withdrawing from the agreement, the U.S. negotiating objectives, the impact on U.S. industries and the U.S. economy, the negotiating objectives of Canada and Mexico, and the impact on broader relations with Canada and Mexico. The outcome of these negotiations will have implications for the future direction of U.S. trade policy under President Trump.
NAFTA renegotiation may provide opportunities to address issues not covered in the original text. Technology and industrial production processes have changed significantly since it was negotiated. The widespread use of the Internet has affected economic activities and the use of e-commerce, for example. A modernization could incorporate elements of more recent U.S. FTAs, such as digital and services trade and enhanced IPR protection. Many U.S. manufacturers, services providers, and agricultural producers oppose efforts to eliminate NAFTA and ask that the Trump Administration strive to “do no harm” in the negotiations because they have much to lose if the United States pulls out of the agreement. Other groups contend that NAFTA should be rewritten to include stronger and more enforceable labor protections, provisions on currency manipulation, and stricter rules of origin
A Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy
Get PDF[Excerpt] This report provides a broad overview of U.S. immigration policy. The first section addresses policies governing how foreign nationals enter the United States either to reside permanently or to stay temporarily. Related topics within this section include visa issuance and security, forms of quasi-legal status, and naturalization. The second section discusses enforcement policies both for excluding foreign nationals from admission into the United States, as well as for detaining and removing those who enter the country unlawfully or who enter lawfully but subsequently commit crimes that make them deportable. The section also covers worksite enforcement and immigration fraud. The third section addresses policies for unauthorized aliens residing in the United States. While intended to be comprehensive, this primer may omit some immigration-related topics. It does not discuss policy issues or congressional concerns about specific immigration-related policies and programs
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History
Get PDF[Excerpt] The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant was created by the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). It replaced the program of cash assistance for needy families that dated back to the New Deal, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and some of its related programs. The enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law was the culmination of a debate about how to overhaul programs providing cash assistance to needy families with children— specifically, those headed by single mothers—that spanned four decades: from the 1960s to the 1990s.
Most of the legislative activity on TANF over the past 15 years has been to temporarily extend the program funding and financing authority for TANF. The 1996 welfare law provided both program authority and funding (appropriations) for TANF through the end of FY2002. Since then, with the exception of one long-term extension, TANF funding has been extended at various times on a short-term basis. Most of these extensions did not change TANF policy, though policy changes were included in extensions enacted in 2006, 2010, and 2012. The Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31) extended TANF funding through the end of FY2018 and altered certain provisions related to research on TANF and its outcomes.
This report will begin with a brief overview of the history of the AFDC program and the welfare reform debates of the 1960s to the 1990s. That overview will be followed by a summary of the 1996 welfare reform law and the changes made since 1996. The report concludes with a detailed chronology of TANF legislation
What is the Payoff of HiPo Programs, and Are Companies De-Investing in Them?
Get PDF[Excerpt] The average firm spends 27% of its learning and development budget on its high-potential (HiPo) programs, and two-thirds of companies divert budget away from other talent investments to fund HiPo initiatives. Companies believe in the value of HiPos and are thus heavily investing in them, however many are struggling to generate a return on investment. In fact, research from the Corporate Executive Board shows that 73% of HiPo programs show no return on investment. Bleak ROIs are resulting in some companies reevaluating their strategies for these formal programs or considering de-investing in these programs altogether. Prior to de-investing it’s essential to weigh the options of modifying the program in place versus reallocating the budget for investments in alternative talent development practices
Modeling Endogenous Mobility in Earnings Determination
Get PDFWe evaluate the bias from endogenous job mobility in fixed-effects estimates of worker- and firm-specific earnings heterogeneity using longitudinally linked employer-employee data from the LEHD infrastructure file system of the U.S. Census Bureau. First, we propose two new residual diagnostic tests of the assumption that mobility is exogenous to unmodeled determinants of earnings. Both tests reject exogenous mobility. We relax the exogenous mobility assumptions by modeling the evolution of the matched data as an evolving bipartite graph using a Bayesian latent class framework. Our results suggest that endogenous mobility biases estimated firm effects toward zero. To assess validity, we match our estimates of the wage components to out-of-sample estimates of revenue per worker. The corrected estimates attribute much more of the variation in revenue per worker to variation in match quality and worker quality than the uncorrected estimates
State of the Artist: Challenges to the New York State Arts & Entertainment Industry and its Workforce
Get PDF[Excerpt] In 2009, with support from Empire State Development (ESD), the Cornell University ILR School published its first report on the state of the New York arts and entertainment (A&E) workforce, Empire State’s Cultural Capital at Risk? Assessing Challenges to the Workforce and the Educational Infrastructure for New York State’s Arts and Entertainment Industry. The report analyzed a number of key characteristics of the A&E workforce across electronic media, live performing, and visual arts, identifying the most pressing issues for New York A&E workers and the support structures in place to protect their interests. The report concluded by proposing a number of questions to policymakers to be considered in future legislation.
State of the Artist both updates this analysis of the State A&E workforce and analyzes trends in recent years based on comparable data presented in the 2009 report. The current report draws from government surveys, industry reports, and interviews with key stakeholders to assess the condition of the NYS A&E industry and its workforce, identifying key issues faced by workers in each sector of the industry.
In addition to an extensive review of current literature, data from primary and secondary sources was analyzed to assess the state of the industry and major trends by sector. Survey data from the US Census Bureau and Department of Labor, notably from the American Community Survey (ACS), were retrieved to isolate trends in A&E workforce employment patterns, demographics, and income by occupational group. This analysis, including a conference attended by industry leaders and representatives to assess reactions to preliminary findings, served to identify current challenges facing this vital workforce to the state economy.
Often left out of discussions about precarious workers, many working within the A&E industry continue to face high rates of contingent and project-based employment, low average income, and inadequate employment protections—all of which are explored here. State of the Artist concludes with a summary of public policies currently in place as well as those under consideration, providing an updated set of questions for New York policymakers
Comparison of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)
Get PDF[Excerpt] On March 6, 2017, the House Committee on Ways and Means and the House Energy and Commerce Committee independently held markups. Each committee voted to transmit its budget reconciliation legislative recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. On March 16, 2017, the House Committee on the Budget held a markup and voted to report a reconciliation bill, H.R. 1628, American Health Care Act (AHCA) of 2017. The House subsequently passed the AHCA with amendments on May 4, 2017, by a vote of 217 to 213.
The House bill was received in the Senate on June 7, 2017, and the next day the Senate majority leader had it placed on the calendar, making it available for floor consideration. The Senate Budget Committee published on its website a “discussion draft” titled, “The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” (BCRA) on June 22 and updated the discussion draft on June 26. This draft legislation is written in the form of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, meaning that it is intended to be considered by the Senate as an amendment to H.R. 1628, as passed by the House, but that all of the House-passed language would be stricken and the language of the BCRA would be inserted in its place.
Both the AHCA and the BCRA would repeal or modify provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended). In addition, both the AHCA and the BCRA include new programs and requirements that are not related to the ACA. This report contains three tables that, together, provide an overview of AHCA provisions and BCRA provisions. Table 1 includes provisions that apply to the private health insurance market; Table 2 includes provisions that affect the Medicaid program; and Table 3 includes provisions related to public health, taxes, and implementation funding
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response: The SAFER Grant Program
Get PDF[Excerpt] In response to concerns over the adequacy of firefighter staffing, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act, known as the SAFER Act, was enacted by the 108th Congress as Section 1057 of the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136). The SAFER Act authorizes grants to career, volunteer, and combination local fire departments for the purpose of increasing the number of firefighters to help communities meet industry-minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. Also authorized are grants to volunteer fire departments for recruitment and retention of volunteers. SAFER is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
With the economic turndown adversely affecting budgets of local governments, concerns arose that modifications to the SAFER statute may be necessary to enable fire departments to more effectively and affordably participate in the program. From FY2009 through FY2015, annual appropriations bills contained provisions that waived certain provisions of the SAFER statute. The waivers served to reduce the financial obligation on SAFER grant recipients, and allowed SAFER grants to be used to rehire laid-off firefighters and to fill positions lost through attrition.
The 112th Congress enacted the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-239), which reauthorized SAFER through FY2017; altered the grant distribution formula among career, volunteer, combination, and paid-on-call fire departments; raised available funding for higher population areas; and addressed waiver issues previously addressed in annual appropriations legislation.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31 ) provided 345 million for AFG and 688.688 million for firefighter assistance, including 344.344 million for AFG, essentially matching the FY2017 level.
With the current authorization of SAFER and AFG expiring on September 30, 2017, and with the current SAFER and AFG statute containing a sunset provision for each program that goes into effect on January 2, 2018, the 115th Congress will likely consider legislation to reauthorize the SAFER and AFG programs. On April 5, 2017, S. 829, the AFG and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017, was introduced by Senator McCain and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On May 17, 2017, the Committee ordered S. 829 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The 115th Congress will also consider budget appropriations for SAFER and AFG. As is the case with many federal programs, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact budget levels for SAFER and AFG. At the same time, firefighter assistance budgets will likely receive heightened scrutiny from the fire community, given the local budgetary shortfalls that many fire departments face