But, there’s always a caveat emptor quality to a lot of this research. That’s because you never really know how well the survey was set up, whether the questions seemed to have some bias and led respondents to certain answers, or even if the group surveyed was really one that would generate a meaningful result.
And there’s something else as well: Sometimes people aren’t completely honest in their responses, even in anonymous research. For example, I’ve been seeing a number of surveys indicating that lots of businesses are poised to bring back salaries and wages that have been cut or rolled back this year, but that sounds a lot more definitive in the surveys than it does when you talk to real executives about their plans.
Could it be that no one wants to admit, even in an anonymous survey, that 2010 is going to be another bad year of holding down pay?
So, that’s MY caveat emptor to these two surveys that seem to be directly contradicting each other. See what you make of them:
According to the survey, more than 80 percent of the respondents say their companies are headed in the right direction, while only 15 percent think things are headed the wrong way. Nearly nine in 10 employees believe conditions will be better or the same a year from now, and only 12 percent say they will be worse.
In addition, respondents to the survey report very high levels of job satisfaction, with nearly 80 percent saying that they are extremely or somewhat satisfied with their current jobs, while only 9 percent are extremely or somewhat unsatisfied. Given the choice, nearly 90 percent of the employees say they will be at the same job six months from now. The employees cite job security, stability, pay and benefits as the primary reasons for their satisfaction. The survey was carried out among a cross section of 500 U.S. full-time workers who have been employed for at least one year at companies with 100 or more employees.
“The study provides a barometer of employee engagement in the workplace, with results that might alarm and surprise many employers,” said Douglas J. Matthews, president and COO of Right Management, in a press release. “Employees are clearly expressing their pent-up frustration with how they have been treated through the downturn. While employers may have taken the necessary steps to streamline operations to remain viable, it appears many employees may have felt neglected in the process. The result is a disengaged and disgruntled workforce.”
So, one survey says that four out of five employees are extremely satisfied with their current job and don’t plan to leave (APCO), while another indicates that nearly two-thirds of workers are unhappy with their employment and intend to bolt whenever they can (Right Management).
Which is it? Can both of these surveys be right?
Here’s my take: You need to take any and all surveys with a grain of salt. Yes, it really is caveat emptor when it comes to these things, and no matter what the respondents may say, I don’t think anyone, anywhere can really handicap when our turbulent economy might improve, or what America’s workforce will actually do when it does.
There’s one thing for certain you can say about Google: The company has been built on making decisions that seem to leave everyone else scratching their heads.
“Google … holds a prime vantage point from which to observe economic trends,” the Times’ Steve Lohr wrote. “And Google, though perhaps not a stand-in for the economy as a whole, is starting to see a recovery. The company recently began hiring again and is looking for companies to buy—both activities that had been held in check for the last year.”
In other words, Google feels so confident about the pace of America’s economic recovery that the company is putting its money on the table and taking a roll of the dice.
However, from Google’s perspective, this is hardly a risky gamble.
“The worst [of the recession] is behind us, and we’re seeing aspects of recovery,” CEO Eric Schmidt told a group of reporters Wednesday, October 7, at the company’s offices in downtown Manhattan. “We’re increasing our investment and hiring rate in anticipation of a recovery.”
“I would hope we’re a leading indicator,” Schmidt said, and I think most everyone who understands that you really need hiring and job growth to truly get the economy going again would agree. Of course, this isn’t the first time Google has done what I would call anticipatory hiring, and that sort of thinking is, well, what makes Google so different from just about any other company anywhere.
But is it the sign we seek, the one that signals that the recovery is here? Who knows, really. I hope that Google’s actions are the start of something big, but one company starting to hire again does not mean the recovery is nigh.
Still, I like Google’s track record on stuff like this. Here’s hoping that Eric Schmidt and his gang in Silicon Valley are as skilful as economic prognosticators as they are in building a killer Web-search business.
If they are, I think they have a future in Washington, perhaps helping a guy named Ben Bernanke at a place called the Federal Reserve.
According to The New York Times’ college sports blog, “The university announced Monday that Locksley had been reprimanded for punching Jonathan Gerald, the team’s wide receivers coach, before the Lobos’ 37-13 loss to Air Force on Sept. 19. Gerald, who is known as J.B., has been on leave and missed Saturday’s 20-17 loss to New Mexico State.”
No one knows exactly what caused the fisticuffs, but New Mexico’s terrible 0-4 start this season may have factored into it. Coach Locksley has apologized for his actions (To wit: “I apologized to Coach Gerald, the coaching staff and our team for my poor judgment. I would also like to apologize to Lobo fans. Like I remind our players, when mistakes are made, you acknowledge them and deal with the consequences.”), but it looks like he will remain on the job for the time being despite his actions.
As I’ve written before, violence has no place in the workplace, and getting physical with a boss or co-worker is usually a surefire way to get fired in any universe. That’s what I thought was true, but now I would amend that statement and add, “unless you are a head football coach at the collegiate or professional level.”
“Boeing’s main white-collar union said … that the company’s plan to cut a generous education perk can’t be applied to its members without negotiations,” the Seattle Times reported, although it looks like the aerospace giant is going to fight with the union about that.
“The [Boeing] company, while acknowledging that union members will retain the benefit for now, said it does want the new restrictions that it’s imposing on college-course subsidies for nonunion employees to apply equally to union members, too,” the Times story said. That’s because “the benefit is not written into most of Boeing’s labor contracts,” according a company spokeswoman, and “whether Boeing can impose the change against the union’s will appears to be a gray area.”
I’ve dealt with unions over items not in the actual labor contract, and it is a marvelous little thing called “past practice,” which generally refers to a labor practice “that has been recognized and accepted by the parties and used several times in the past.”
Boeing management asserts that most of the company’s union contracts “include no specific reference to the [educational reimbursement] program but only a general clause stating that Boeing cannot impose benefit changes ‘without at least sitting down with the union.’ ” Boeing management plans to do that, they say, but the fact that this was all announced before the big sit-down gives you a pretty good clue as to where this is all going.
I’m all for educational benefits, and there’s no doubt that this is a great perk that has benefited a great many Boeing workers over the years, as I’ve seen firsthand. But, it may just be a perk that’s unsustainable in this severe and turbulent economic environment. Here’s hoping that Boeing and its unions can get together and discuss this in the context of how to help the company to succeed and get through this recession. That would be a win-win negotiation both sides could be proud of.
Back when I was in grad school at Pepperdine University, I was amazed at all the workers from Boeing who had decided to go back to college to get their MBA.
It wasn’t because Boeing employees were any more motivated or industrious than people working at other companies. No, the huge number of Boeing employees enrolled in grad school was due to one thing and one thing only—the company’s longstanding policy to pay 100 percent of tuition for any employee enrolled at an accredited educational institution.
“Until now, when a Boeing employee enrolled for any class at any accredited college, the company picked up the tuition—with no restrictions,” says a story in the Seattle Times. “But many of those enjoying free classes will lose that benefit at year-end, when Boeing starts limiting its subsidy to cover only courses that further an employee’s career at the company.”
This was not only a generous benefit, but a lot of Boeing employees took advantage of it—21,000 nationwide, according to the Seattle Times.
And that may have been part of the problem, at least when Boeing started looking at the cost-benefit analysis for this pricey perk in today’s turbulent economic environment.
“Boeing spokeswoman Karen Forte said the company’s support for employees’ continuing education previously was almost unlimited,” the Times story notes. “It was pretty much an open-checkbook program,” she said. In addition, “there was no requirement to stay with the company after finishing the coursework, no limit on what kind of classes were covered. … We’ve had everything from mortuary science to sports and hobby programs,” Forte told the newspaper.
In addition to getting rid of the “anything goes” approach to paying for employee education, Boeing is also limiting the program in other ways:
• Starting in October, Boeing will pay for new enrollments only in courses that are considered “strategic” to its business. “So no more free wine-appreciation classes, culinary-arts degrees or soccer workshops,” the Times says.
• In addition, the days of unlimited educational reimbursement by Boeing, even for a “strategic” educational program, are gone as well. The company’s contribution will be capped at $15,000 a year, period.
• Boeing will also require employees to stay at the company for at least two years after finishing a course for which they are getting reimbursed. If they don’t, the employee must reimburse the company.
This benefit change may cause problems for some Boeing workers who are in the middle of an advanced degree program that they were expecting the company to pay for, because if it’s not deemed “strategic”’ they now have to foot the bill. That may not be something workers who got into these educational programs can afford right now.
Unless you work for Boeing, I doubt you’ll be shedding a tear for anyone losing this generous (and some might say unsustainable) benefit, but it is another sign of the economic times we’re in. Benefits are going to cost employees more and they will be getting less in 2010, and that’s a trend that isn’t going to change.
Given all of that, you also shouldn’t be surprised at this: Your employer-sponsored benefit packages next year are going to hit you with more out-of-pocket expenses, a bigger push for wellness, fewer choices and options, and tighter cost controls.
• Higher out-of-pocket costs. More than four in 10 employers in a recent Watson Wyatt survey said they will raise deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket maximums due to the economic crisis. Some employers might raise doctor visit co-payments by $5. Others might no longer provide 100 percent coverage for in-network services, opting instead to introduce some level of co-insurance to encourage workers to be more aware of the cost of services. Deductibles for individual and family coverage are expected to increase by $50 to $100 or more among some employers.
• Greater use of incentives to stay healthy. Employers are continuing their push to improve the health of employees and their families. In addition to continuing the focus on wellness communication, employers are offering workers (and, in some cases, spouses) more incentives such as gift cards, cash and discounted premiums for undergoing a health risk assessment or participating in smoking cessation, weight management or fitness programs. They are also giving workers access to on-site health coaching as well as using health service providers to deliver Web-based and telephonic coaching.
• Consumer-directed health plans. More employers will offer CDHPs next year as they are increasingly viewed as an effective way to control rising costs. Those employers adopting new plans are generally adding a high-deductible plan, often with a health savings account. Most employers adding these plans will offer them as an option to workers rather than replacing their traditional health plans.
• Consolidation of health plan offerings. Some employers plan to reduce the number of health plan options they offer to workers. As more employers consolidate and change their health plans and networks for 2010, some employees might have to change physicians or pay higher out-of-network costs.
• Prescription drug benefits. Some workers will see changes to their prescription drug benefits in 2010. As part of an overall movement to CDHPs, a number of employers are introducing a CDHP prescription drug benefit option that typically offers workers 100 percent coverage on a list of preventive medications. Other companies are introducing value-based designs that include zero co-pays on certain prescription drug therapies that are known to help lower health costs and reduce hospitalizations.
• A closer eye on spousal and dependent coverage. Employers are increasingly revisiting spousal and dependent coverage in their efforts to control rising costs. Some employers are requiring spouses to complete health-risk assessments, while others are charging higher premiums for working spouses who have access to other health care coverage. More employers are also expected to audit their workers to eliminate dependents who are not eligible for coverage.
If anything is clear in all of this, it’s that the unrelenting double-digit increase in the cost of health care will continue to affect everyone—both employers and employees—no matter how you feel about the reform efforts coming out of Washington. And, it’s why the debate on the subject isn’t likely to be solved anytime soon.
= Member Only
