Showing posts with label Department of Labor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Labor. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

LABOR DEPARTMENT | "Breathtakingly Cruel" Guidance on CARES Act

National Council of
Nonprofits Logo
April 28, 2020—The National Council on Nonprofits sent a note about late-night yesterday (April 27) guidance to the states from the Department of Labor. It is numbered UIPL 18-20,

The Council describes it as "breathtakingly cruel" in its impact on charitable nonprofits trying to serve on the front lines in the pandemic crisis. It immediately affects their current employees and the communities they serve.

The DOL guidance instructs states to bill certain tax-exempt employers immediately for 100 percent of the costs of unemployment benefits paid to employees laid off as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. What follows is the language of the National Council on Nonprofits:
Worse, the guidance informs states that if they show compassion and forgive nonprofits of the burden of these crippling expenses, the federal government will shortchange the state for much of those costs – despite express language in the CARES Act to allow states to interpret their own unemployment compensation laws “in a manner that would provide maximum flexibility” to those nonprofit employers.
The Labor Department’s Draconian guidance declares that affected nonprofits must pay, they must pay now, and any state that cuts the nonprofits slack will be punished by the federal government. At a time when nonprofits are dealing with unprecedented levels of need in their communities, DOL decided to take even more money away from this vital work – and threaten more jobs in the process. Breathtakingly cruel, indeed.
Congress is spending trillions to keep people on the job and called on the Labor Secretary to provide the states “maximum flexibility” on the issue. Yet this misguided guidance from the Labor Department fixates on the word “reimbursing,” forcing an unnecessary and burdensome double-reverse reimbursement: First, nonprofits must divert funds from paying their current employees and conducting operations for their communities in order to reimburse the state for the full cost of benefits paid out. And then nonprofits must wait without crucial operating funds until overburdened state unemployment offices can find the time and money to reimburse the nonprofits half of that amount. This absurd guidance will force nonprofits to lay off even more employees to come up with initial funds to pay unemployment bills and curtail serving their communities. The White House and Congress must step in immediately to reverse course and enable America’s charitable organizations to serve their communities to the best of their abilities in these difficult times.
The DOL guidance applies to a category of tax-exempt entities known as “reimbursing employers,” those that are permitted by Congress to self-insure claims for unemployment benefits by paying back the state unemployment trust fund for unemployment benefits paid to their former employees. “Reimbursing employers” include nonprofits, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian Tribes that follow the law by electing to make payments in lieu of contributions to state unemployment trust funds. The CARES Act enacted in March provides that the federal government will cover 50 percent of the cost of claims charged to reimbursing employers. To underscore its intent to provide wide latitude, Congress instructed that any interpretive guidance by DOL must give states “maximum flexibility” to interpret their own unemployment compensation laws regarding reimbursing employers as it relates to timely payment and assessment of penalties and interest. Instead, the DOL guidance takes already limited money from productive missions to run through an unproductive circuitous loop.
Under federal and state unemployment compensation laws, there are three types of employers: (1) the majority that pay an unemployment tax into the state trust fund, (2) reimbursing employers, and (3) exempt employers that pay nothing and their employees are not eligible for benefits.
Recognizing that the unemployment insurance system never anticipated an economic impact as severe as the COVID-19 pandemic, the CARES Act holds harmless the employers paying into the state fund and extends benefits to uninsured individuals who, but for the emergency statute, would not be entitled to unemployment payments. Only the “reimbursing employers” have been singled out for immediate, adverse treatment by the new guidance from the Labor Department.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

NYC | Leads NYS the State in July

New York State's private jobs grew in July to 7,831,700, a new record high, says the NYS Department of Labor today.

NYS unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent from from 5.5 percent. The July rate is the lowest rate in  NYS since July 2008. 

New York City’s unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent from 6.1 percent, its lowest rate since August 2008.

The unemployment rate is estimated based on a monthly survey of 3,100 households in the state.

New York State kept pace with the United States in July. Both private-sector and total (including government) jobs grew at 0.2 percent compared with the month before.

                  Jobs, Nonfarm, June-July 2015, US and NYS
Change, Nonfarm Jobs:
(private sector + government)
Change,
Private Sector Jobs:



United States                    +215,000    
           +210,000
New York State                      +19,000
             +19,300

The number of unemployed in New York State decreased in July 2015 to 519,300 from 537,400 in June. The gap between New York State and New York City has greatly narrowed. New York State's unemployment rate fell 0.7 of a percentage point from a year earlier and New York City's fell 1.3 percentage points.

Unemployment Rates (%)*
*Data are preliminary and subject to change, based on standard procedures outlined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
July 2015*June 2015July 2014
United States5.3 5.36.2
New York State5.45.56.1
New York City5.76.17.0
NYS, outside NYC5.15.15.5

Compared with July 2014, the growth in jobs in New York State outpaced national growth. New York City led the state.

Change in Total Nonfarm and Private Sector Jobs, July 2014 – July 2015
Change in
Total Nonfarm Jobs:

(private sector + government)
Change in
Private Sector Jobs:
Net
%
Net
%
United States+2,953,000+2.1%+2,868,000+2.4%
New York State+189,700+2.1%+189,000+2.5%
    Albany-Schenectady-Troy+7,800+1.7%+7,200+2.0%
    Binghamton00.0%00.0%
    Buffalo-Niagara Falls+12,600+2.3%+12,800+2.7%
    Dutchess-Putnam+400+0.3%+700+0.6%
    Elmira+600+1.6%+700+2.2%
    Glens Falls+900+1.5%+900+1.8%
    Ithaca+1,100+1.7%+1,400+2.5%
    Kingston+600+1.0%+600+1.3%
    Nassau-Suffolk+19,200+1.5%+19,900+1.8%
    New York City+111,200+2.7%+107,800+3.0%
    Orange-Rockland-Westchester+8,400+1.2%+9,100+1.6%
    Rochester+9,300+1.8%+9,700+2.2%
    Syracuse+2,700+0.9%+2,800+1.1%
    Utica-Rome+900+0.7%+1,000+1.0%
    Watertown-Fort Drum-200-0.5%-400-1.2%
    Non-metro Counties-2000.0%-800-0.2%

Friday, November 7, 2014

JOBS | Unemployment by Age Group–Two Problems

The story in the New York Times by Floyd Norris this morning, first published yesterday, warns about the unemployment data released this morning by the BLS. He says the unemployment data are complicated:
It is not simply a matter of whether a member of the household was working during the week covered by a monthly survey. Was a person without a job looking for work? If so, that person is counted as unemployed. If not, the person is deemed not to be in the labor force. Further questions are meant to determine if that person was not looking because he or she was discouraged about the chances of finding a job. If so, that person goes into a category that is included in a different indicator of unemployment.
I would like to illustrate his point with a look at a detailed table from today's release by the BLS, which is headlined by a 0.1 percentage point reduction of the unemployment rate to 5.8 percent - good news. The 5.8 percent rate is an average of all age groups. The rate is much lower, barely above 4 percent, for people who are 35 and over. It is much higher for young people under 25. Only for the 25-34 age group is the unemployment rate even a good approximation.

 Chart 1. Household Survey Unemployment Data by Age Group
From Table A-10, Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
Age Group No. unemployed, '000 Unemployment rates, percent
Oct.
2013
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014
Oct.
2013
June
2014
July
2014
Aug.
2014
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014
Total, 16 years and over 11,140 9,262 8,995 7.2 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8
16 to 17 years 471 395 459 23.8 23.3 23.1 23.7 20.9 22.2
18 to 19 years 788 741 634 21.1 19.3 18.8 17.8 19.8 16.8
20 to 24 years 1,909 1,785 1,654 12.2 10.5 11.3 10.6 11.4 10.5
25 to 34 years 2,426 2,101 2,126 7.2 6.5 6.6 6.9 6.2 6.2
35 to 44 years 1,857 1,410 1,439 5.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.3 4.4
45 to 54 years 2,005 1,401 1,360 5.9 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.0
55 years and over 1,813 1,332 1,384 5.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 3.9 4.1

What are we to make of this? The article by Floyd Norris points the way to explanations of the data that have policy implications.

The High Unemployment Rate among the Young. In a typical household, the respondent will be an older person, who will be worried about the self-sufficiency and marriage prospects of the younger members of the household. So of course the young people are looking for work. If they are not working, it is because the system is failing them and so they are unemployed.

I believe each household will be very focused on jobs for young members of the family. I therefore think we can trust the data for unemployment among young people.

The problem is that young people need to acquire work habits and skills. The Department of Labor is promoting apprenticeships to bridge the work-habit and skills gap for young people. As I have said before, I think this is a good program.

Questionable Data on the Elderly. For those 55 years and over, however, the issue is not skills but health, fatigue and inertia. Layoffs become permanent because older workers lose their skills during a long period of unemployment.

Respondents to the survey may be more indulgent if grandpa or grandma is unemployed. He or she may have an ailment that prevents them going to work. The savings of the grandparents may be inadequate for a comfortable retirement, but they aren't up to answering advertisements.They may show up under the "long-term unemployed" or "discouraged workers" but most likely they are counted as just not being in the labor force.

So they don't show up as unemployed, but they have valuable knowledge and would take a job if one was offered. What I am thinking is that the unemployment data are understated in the oldest age group and that a program that would parallel apprenticeship for the oldest workers would be useful.

Two public-policy implications of this come to mind:
  • To avoid losing large numbers of older workers in a downturn, the Federal Government should subsidize a kurzarbeit program whereby workers are put on shorter weeks rather than some of them being laid off. These preserves worker skills for the uptick in business.
  • A pro-active program for matching up skills with employers would be useful, focusing on the special needs of 55+ workers. The National Council on Aging highlights a program of the Taub Foundation that targets this issue.
Gender Differences

It used to be, a year ago, that the unemployment rate was higher for men than women.That number has flipped, and women are slightly more likely to be unemployed - except for the youngest (16-17) and oldest (55+) age groups.

The best predictor of a low unemployment rate is having a spouse in the house. Both men and women with a spouse around have an average unemployment rate below 4 percent,

Chart 2. Household Survey Unemployment Data by Age Group and Gender
Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
Characteristic No. unemployed ('000) Unemployment rates, Percent
Oct.
2013
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014
Oct.
2013
June
2014
July
2014
Aug.
2014
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014








MEN, 16 years and over 6,171 4,872 4,638 7.5 6.3 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.6
16 to 17 years 224 199 259 23.3 26.6 25.7 25.5 21.4 25.2
18 to 19 years 500 419 312 25.3 21.1 20.5 19.9 22.3 16.5
20 to 24 years 1,111 1,034 842 13.7 11.7 12.5 11.5 12.6 10.3
25 to 34 years 1,360 1,055 1,106 7.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 5.7 6.0
35 to 44 years 998 685 720 5.7 4.5 4.8 4.9 3.9 4.1
45 to 54 years 1,073 715 658 6.0 4.1 3.8 4.3 4.0 3.7
55 years and over 991 725 767 5.6 4.9 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.2

WOMEN, 16 years and over 4,969 4,390 4,358 6.9 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9
16 to 17 years 247 196 199 24.2 20.5 20.6 22.0 20.3 19.2
18 to 19 years 288 322 322 16.4 17.5 17.1 15.6 17.3 17.1
20 to 24 years 798 751 812 10.7 9.1 9.8 9.6 10.2 10.7
25 to 34 years 1,066 1,047 1,020 6.9 6.5 6.6 7.2 6.6 6.4
35 to 44 years 859 725 719 5.8 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.8
45 to 54 years 932 686 701 5.7 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.4
55 years and over 787 620 595 5.0 4.1 4.6 4.7 3.9 3.7

Married men, spouse present 2,046 1,302 1,360 4.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.9 3.0
Married women, spouse present 1,679 1,325 1,298 4.7 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.6