Hiring and Promotion

More stories

  • 113 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    The ‘Great Resignation’ Is Over. Can Workers’ Power Endure?

    by

    The furious pace of job-switching in recent years has led to big gains for low-wage workers. But the pendulum could be swinging back toward employers.Tens of millions of Americans have changed jobs over the past two years, a tidal wave of quitting that reflected — and helped create — a rare moment of worker power as employees demanded higher pay, and as employers, short on staff, often gave it to them.But the “great resignation,” as it came to be known, appears to be ending. The rate at which workers voluntarily quit their jobs has fallen sharply in recent months — though it edged up in May — and is only modestly above where it was before the pandemic disrupted the U.S. labor market. In some industries where turnover was highest, like hospitality and retail businesses, quitting has fallen back to prepandemic levels.Quits Are High, But Falling

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Voluntary quits per 100 workers
    Note: Data is seasonally adjustedSource: Labor DepartmentBy The New York TimesNow the question is whether the gains that workers made during the great resignation will outlive the moment — or whether employers will regain leverage, particularly if, as many forecasters expect, the economy slips into a recession sometime in the next year.Already, the pendulum may be swinging back toward employers. Wage growth has slowed, especially in the low-paying service jobs where it surged as turnover peaked in late 2021 and early 2022. Employers, though still complaining of labor shortages, report that it has gotten easier to hire and retain workers. And those who do change jobs are no longer receiving the supersize raises that became the norm in recent years, according to data from the payroll processing firm ADP.“You don’t see the signs saying $1,000 signing bonus anymore,” said Nela Richardson, ADP’s chief economist.Ms. Richardson compared the labor market to a game of musical chairs: When the economy began to recover from pandemic shutdowns, workers were able to move between jobs freely. But with recession warnings in the air, they are becoming nervous about getting caught without a job when fewer are available.“Everyone knows the music is about to stop,” Ms. Richardson said. “That is going to lead people to stay put a bit longer.”Aubrey Moya joined the great resignation about a year and a half ago, when she decided she had had enough of the low wages and backbreaking work of waiting tables. Her husband, a welder, was making good money — he, too, had changed jobs in search of better pay — and they decided it was time for her to start the photography business she had long dreamed of. Ms. Moya, 38, became one of the millions of Americans to start a small business during the pandemic.Today, though, Ms. Moya is questioning whether her dream is sustainable. Her husband is making less money, and living costs have risen. Her customers, stung by inflation, aren’t splurging on the boudoir photo sessions she specializes in. She is nervous about making payments on her Fort Worth studio.“There was a moment of empowerment,” she said. “There was a moment of ‘We’re not going back, and we’re not going to take this anymore,’ but the truth is yes, we are, because how else are we going to pay the bills?”But Ms. Moya isn’t going back to waiting tables just yet. And some economists think workers are likely to hold on to some of the gains they have made in recent years.“There are good reasons to think that at least a chunk of the changes that we’ve seen in the low-wage labor market will prove lasting,” said Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts professor who has studied the pandemic economy.The great resignation was often portrayed as a phenomenon of people quitting work altogether, but the data tells a different story. Most of them quit to take other, typically better-paying jobs — or, like Ms. Moya, to start businesses. And while turnover increased in virtually all industries, it was concentrated in low-wage services, where workers have generally had little leverage.For those workers, the rapid reopening of the in-person economy in 2021 provided a rare opportunity: Restaurants, hotels and stores needed tens of thousands of employees when many people still shunned jobs requiring face-to-face interaction with the public. And even as concerns about the coronavirus faded, demand for workers continued to outstrip supply, partly because many people who had left the service industry weren’t eager to return.The result was a surge in wages for workers at the bottom of the earnings ladder. Average hourly earnings for rank-and-file restaurant and hotel workers rose 28 percent from the end of 2020 to the end of 2022, far outpacing both inflation and overall wage growth.In a recent paper, Mr. Dube and two co-authors found that the earnings gap between workers at the top of the income scale and those at the bottom, after widening for four decades, began to narrow: In just two years, the economy undid about a quarter of the increase in inequality since 1980. Much of that progress, they found, came from workers’ increased ability — and willingness — to change jobs.Pay is no longer rising faster for low-wage workers than for other groups. But importantly in Mr. Dube’s view, low-wage workers have not lost ground over the past two years, making wage gains that more or less keep up with inflation and higher earners. That suggests that turnover could be declining not only because workers are becoming more cautious but also because employers have had to raise pay and improve conditions enough that their workers aren’t desperate to leave.The strong labor market gave Danny Cron, a restaurant server, the confidence to keep changing jobs until he found one that worked for him.Yasara Gunawardena for The New York TimesDanny Cron, a restaurant server in Los Angeles, has changed jobs twice since going back to work after pandemic restrictions lifted. He initially went to work at a dive bar, where his hours were “brutal” and the most lucrative shifts were reserved for servers who sold the most margaritas. He quit to work at a large chain restaurant, which offered better hours but little scheduling flexibility — a problem for Mr. Cron, an aspiring actor.So last year, Mr. Cron, 28, quit again, for a job at Blue Ribbon, an upscale sushi restaurant, where he makes more money and which is more accommodating of his acting schedule. The strong postpandemic labor market, he said, gave him the confidence to keep changing jobs until he found one that worked for him.“I knew there were a plethora of other jobs to be had, so I felt less attached to any one job out of necessity,” Mr. Cron wrote in an email.But now that he has a job he likes, he said, he feels little urge to keep searching — partly because he senses that the job market has softened, but mostly because he is happy where he is.“Looking for a new job is a lot of work, and training for a new job is a lot of work,” he said. “So when you find a good serving job, you’re not going to give that up.”The labor market remains strong, with unemployment below 4 percent and job growth continuing, albeit more slowly than in 2021 or 2022. But even optimists like Mr. Dube concede that workers like Mr. Cron could lose leverage if companies start cutting jobs en masse.“It’s very tenuous,” said Kathryn Anne Edwards, a labor economist and policy consultant who has studied the role of quitting in wage growth. A recession, she said, could wipe away gains made by hourly workers over the past few years.Still, some workers say one thing has changed in a more lasting way: their behavior. After being lauded as “essential workers” early in the pandemic — and given bonuses, paid sick time and other perks — many people in hospitality, retail and similar jobs say they were disappointed to see companies roll back benefits as the emergency abated. The great resignation, they say, was partly a reaction to that experience: They were no longer willing to work for companies that didn’t value them.Amanda Shealer, who manages a store near Hickory, N.C., said her boss had recently told her that she needed to find more ways to accommodate hourly workers because they would otherwise leave for jobs elsewhere. Her response: “So will I.”“If I don’t feel like I’m being supported and I don’t feel like you’re taking my concerns seriously and you guys just continue to dump more and more to me, I can do the same thing,” Ms. Shealer, 40, said. “You don’t have the loyalty to a company anymore, because the companies don’t have the loyalty to you.” More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Ex-Prisoners Face Headwinds as Job Seekers, Even as Openings Abound

    by

    An estimated 60 percent of those leaving prison are unemployed a year later. But after a push for “second-chance hiring,” some programs show promise.The U.S. unemployment rate is hovering near lows unseen since the 1960s. A few months ago, there were roughly two job openings for every unemployed person in the country. Many standard economic models suggest that almost everyone who wants a job has a job.Yet the broad group of Americans with records of imprisonment or arrests — a population disproportionately male and Black — have remarkably high jobless rates. Over 60 percent of those leaving prison are unemployed a year later, seeking work but not finding it.That harsh reality has endured even as the social upheaval after the murder of George Floyd in 2020 gave a boost to a “second-chance hiring” movement in corporate America aimed at hiring candidates with criminal records. And the gap exists even as unemployment for minority groups overall is near record lows.Many states have “ban the box” laws barring initial job applications from asking if candidates have a criminal history. But a prison record can block progress after interviews or background checks — especially for convictions more serious than nonviolent drug offenses, which have undergone a more sympathetic public reappraisal in recent years.For economic policymakers, a persistent demand for labor paired with a persistent lack of work for many former prisoners presents an awkward conundrum: A wide swath of citizens have re-entered society — after a quadrupling of the U.S. incarceration rate over 40 years — but the nation’s economic engine is not sure what to with them.“These are people that are trying to compete in the legal labor market,” said Shawn D. Bushway, an economist and criminologist at the RAND Corporation, who estimates that 64 percent of unemployed men have been arrested and that 46 percent have been convicted. “You can’t say, ‘Well, these people are just lazy’ or ‘These people really don’t really want to work.’”In a research paper, Mr. Bushway and his co-authors found that when former prisoners do land a job, “they earn significantly less than their counterparts without criminal history records, making the middle class ever less reachable for unemployed men” in this cohort.One challenge is a longstanding presumption that people with criminal records are more likely to be difficult, untrustworthy or unreliable employees. DeAnna Hoskins, the president of JustLeadershipUSA, a nonprofit group focused on decreasing incarceration, said she challenged that concern as overblown. Moreover, she said, locking former prisoners out of the job market can foster “survival crime” by people looking to make ends meet.One way shown to stem recidivism — a relapse into criminal behavior — is deepening investments in prison education so former prisoners re-enter society with more demonstrable, valuable skills.According to a RAND analysis, incarcerated people who take part in education programs are 43 percent less likely than others to be incarcerated again, and for every dollar spent on prison education, the government saves $4 to $5 in reimprisonment costs.Last year, a chapter of the White House Council of Economic Advisers’ Economic Report of the President was dedicated, in part, to “substantial evidence of labor force discrimination against formerly incarcerated people.” The Biden administration announced that the Justice and Labor Departments would devote $145 million over two years to job training and re-entry services for federal prisoners.Mr. Bushway pointed to another approach: broader government-sponsored jobs programs for those leaving incarceration. Such programs existed more widely at the federal level before the tough-on-crime movement of the 1980s, providing incentives like wage subsidies for businesses hiring workers with criminal records.But Mr. Bushway and Ms. Hoskins said any consequential changes were likely to need support from and coordination with states and cities. Some small but ambitious efforts are underway.Training and CounselingJabarre Jarrett is a full-time web developer for Persevere, a nonprofit group, and hopes to build enough experience to land a more senior role in the private sector.Whitten Sabbatini for The New York TimesIn May 2016, Jabarre Jarrett of Ripley, Tenn., a small town about 15 miles east of the Mississippi River, got a call from his sister. She told Mr. Jarrett, then 27, that her boyfriend had assaulted her. Frustrated and angry, Mr. Jarrett drove to see her. A verbal altercation with the man, who was armed, turned physical, and Mr. Jarrett, also armed, fatally shot him.Mr. Jarrett pleaded guilty to a manslaughter charge and was given a 12-year sentence. Released in 2021 after his term was reduced for good conduct, he found that he was still paying for his crime, in a literal sense.Housing was hard to get. Mr. Jarrett owed child support. And despite a vibrant labor market, he struggled to piece together a living, finding employers hesitant to offer him full-time work that paid enough to cover his bills.“One night somebody from my past called me, man, and they offered me an opportunity to get back in the game,” he said — with options like “running scams, selling drugs, you name it.”One reason he resisted, Mr. Jarrett said, was his decision a few weeks earlier to sign up for a program called Persevere, out of curiosity.Persevere, a nonprofit group funded by federal grants, private donations and state partnerships, focuses on halting recidivism in part through technical job training, offering software development courses to those recently freed from prison and those within three years of release. It pairs that effort with “wraparound services” — including mentorship, transportation, temporary housing and access to basic necessities — to address financial and mental health needs.For Mr. Jarrett, that network helped solidify a life change. When he got off the phone call with the old friend, he called a mental health counselor at Persevere.“I said, ‘Man, is this real?’” he recalled. “I told him, ‘I got child support, I just lost another job, and somebody offered me an opportunity to make money right now, and I want to turn it down so bad, but I don’t have no hope.’” The counselor talked him through the moment and discussed less risky ways to get through the next months.In September, after his yearlong training period, Mr. Jarrett became a full-time web developer for Persevere itself, making about $55,000 a year — a stroke of luck, he said, until he builds enough experience for a more senior role at a private-sector employer.Persevere is relatively small (active in six states) and rare in its design. Yet its program claims extraordinary success compared with conventional approaches.By many measures, over 60 percent of formerly incarcerated people are arrested or convicted again. Executives at Persevere report recidivism in the single digits among participants who complete its program, with 93 percent placed in jobs and a 85 percent retention rate, defined as still working a year later.“We’re working with regular people who made a very big mistake, so anything that I can do to help them live a fruitful, peaceful, good life is what I want to do,” said Julie Landers, a program manager at Persevere in the Atlanta area.If neither employers nor governments “roll the dice” on the millions sentenced for serious crimes, Ms. Landers argued, “we’re going to get what we’ve always gotten” — cycles of poverty and criminality — “and that’s the definition of insanity.”Pushing for ChangeDant’e Cottingham works full time for EX-incarcerated People Organizing, lobbying local businesses in Wisconsin to warm up to second-chance hiring.Akilah Townsend for The New York TimesDant’e Cottingham got a life sentence at 17 for first-degree intentional homicide in the killing of another man and served 27 years. While in prison, he completed a paralegal program. As a job seeker afterward, he battled the stigma of a criminal record — an obstacle he is trying to help others overcome.While working at a couple of minimum-wage restaurant jobs in Wisconsin after his release last year, he volunteered as an organizer for EXPO — EX-incarcerated People Organizing — a nonprofit group, mainly funded by grants and donations, that aims to “restore formerly incarcerated people to full participation in the life of our communities.”Now he works full time for the group, meeting with local businesses to persuade them to take on people with criminal records. He also works for another group, Project WisHope, as a peer support specialist, using his experience to counsel currently and formerly incarcerated people.It can still feel like a minor victory “just getting somebody an interview,” Mr. Cottingham said, with only two or three companies typically showing preliminary interest in anyone with a serious record.“I run into some doors, but I keep talking, I keep trying, I keep setting up meetings to have the discussion,” he said. “It’s not easy, though.”Ed Hennings, who started a Milwaukee-based trucking company in 2016, sees things from two perspectives: as a formerly imprisoned person and as an employer.Mr. Hennings served 20 years in prison for reckless homicide in a confrontation he and his uncle had with another man. Even though he mostly hires formerly incarcerated men — at least 20 so far — he candidly tells some candidates that he has limited “wiggle room to decipher whether you changed or not.” Still, Mr. Hennings, 51, is quick to add that he has been frustrated by employers that use those circumstances as a blanket excuse.“I understand that it takes a little more work to try to decipher all of that, but I know from hiring people myself that you just have to be on your judgment game,” he said. “There are some people that come home that are just not ready to change — true enough — but there’s a large portion that are ready to change, given the opportunity.”In addition to greater educational opportunities before release, he thinks giving employers incentives like subsidies to do what they otherwise would not may be among the few solutions that stick, even though it is a tough political hurdle.“It’s hard for them not to look at you a certain way and still hard for them to get over that stigma,” Mr. Hennings said. “And that’s part of the conditioning and culture of American society.” More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Affirmative Action Ruling May Upend Diversity Hiring Policies, Too

    by

    The Supreme Court decision on college admissions could lead companies to alter recruitment and promotion practices to pre-empt legal challenges.As a legal matter, the Supreme Court’s rejection of race-conscious admissions in higher education does not in itself impede employers from pursuing diversity in the workplace.That, at least, is the conclusion of lawyers, diversity experts and political activists across the spectrum — from conservatives who say robust affirmative action programs are already illegal to liberals who argue that they are on firm legal ground.But many experts argue that as a practical matter, the ruling will discourage corporations from putting in place ambitious diversity policies in hiring and promotion — or prompt them to rein in existing policies — by encouraging lawsuits under the existing legal standard.After the decision on Thursday affecting college admissions, law firms encouraged companies to review their diversity policies.“I do worry about corporate counsels who see their main job as keeping organizations from getting sued — I do worry about hyper-compliance,” said Alvin B. Tillery Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy at Northwestern University, who advises employers on diversity policies.Programs to foster the hiring and promotion of African Americans and other minority workers have been prominent in corporate America in recent years, especially in the reckoning over race after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.Even before the ruling in the college cases, corporations were feeling legal pressure over their diversity efforts. Over the past two years, a lawyer representing a free-market group has sent letters to American Airlines, McDonald’s and many other corporations demanding that they undo hiring policies that the group says are illegal.The free-market group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, acknowledged that the outcome on Thursday did not bear directly on its fight against affirmative-action in corporate America. “Today’s decision is not relevant; it dealt with a special carve-out for education,” said Scott Shepard, a fellow at the center.Mr. Shepard claimed victory nonetheless, arguing that the ruling would help deter employers who might be tempted overstep the law. “It couldn’t be clearer after the decision that fudging it at the edges” is not allowed, he said.(American Airlines and McDonald’s did not respond to requests for comment about their hiring and promotion policies.)Charlotte A. Burrows, who was designated chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by President Biden, was also quick to declare that nothing had changed. She said the decision “does not address employer efforts to foster diverse and inclusive work forces or to engage the talents of all qualified workers, regardless of their background.”Some companies in the cross hairs of conservative groups underscored the point. “Novartis’s D.E.I. programs are narrowly tailored, fair, equitable and comply with existing law,” the drugmaker said in a statement, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion. Novartis, too, has received a letter from a lawyer representing Mr. Shepard’s group, demanding that it change its policy on hiring law firms.The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action was largely silent on employment-related questions.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesBeyond government contractors, affirmative action policies in the private sector are largely voluntary and governed by state and federal civil rights law. These laws prohibit employers from basing hiring or promotion decisions on a characteristic like race or gender, whether in favor of a candidate or against.The exception, said Jason Schwartz, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn, is that companies can take race into account if members of a racial minority were previously excluded from a job category — say, an investment bank recruiting Black bankers after it excluded Black people from such jobs for decades. In some cases, employers can also take into account the historical exclusion of a minority group from an industry — like Black and Latino people in the software industry.In principle, the logic of the Supreme Court’s ruling on college admissions could threaten some of these programs, like those intended to address industrywide discrimination. But even here, the legal case may be a stretch because the way employers typically make decisions about hiring and promotion differs from the way colleges make admissions decisions.“What seems to bother the court is that the admissions programs at issue treated race as a plus without regard to the individual student,” Pauline Kim, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in employment law, said in an email. But “employment decisions are more often individualized decisions,” focusing on the fit between a candidate and a job, she said.The more meaningful effect of the court’s decision is likely to be greater pressure on policies that were already on questionable legal ground. Those could include leadership acceleration programs or internship programs that are open only to members of underrepresented minority groups.Many companies may also find themselves vulnerable over policies that comply with civil rights law on paper but violate it in practice, said Mike Delikat, a partner at Orrick who specializes in employment law. For example, a company’s policy may encourage recruiters to seek a more diverse pool of candidates, from which hiring decisions are made without regard to race. But if recruiters carry out the policy in a way that effectively creates a racial quota, he said, that is illegal.“The devil is in the details,” Mr. Delikat said. “Were they interpreting that to mean, ‘Come back with 25 percent of the internship class that has to be from an underrepresented group, and if not you get dinged as a bad recruiter’?”The college admissions cases before the Supreme Court were largely silent on these employment-related questions. Nonetheless, Mr. Delikat said, his firm has been counseling clients ever since the court agreed to hear the cases that they should ensure that their policies are airtight because an increase in litigation is likely.That is partly because of the growing attack from the political right on corporate policies aimed at diversity in hiring and other social and environmental goals.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has signed legislation to limit diversity training in the workplace.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesGov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has deplored “the woke mind virus” and proclaimed Florida “the state where woke goes to die.” The state has enacted legislation to limit diversity training in the workplace and has restricted state pension funds from basing investments on “woke environmental, social and corporate governance” considerations.Conservative legal groups have also mobilized on this front. A group run by Stephen Miller, a White House adviser in the Trump administration, contended in letters to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the diversity and inclusion policies of several large companies were illegal and asked the commission to investigate. (Mr. Miller’s group did not respond to a request for comment about those cases.)The National Center for Public Policy Research, which is challenging corporate diversity policies, has sued Starbucks directors and officers after they refused to undo the company’s diversity and inclusion policies in response to a letter demanding that they do so. (Starbucks did not respond to a request for comment for this article, but its directors told the group that it was “not in the best interest of Starbucks to accept the demand and retract the policies.”)Mr. Shepard, the fellow at the center, said more lawsuits were “reasonably likely” if other companies did not accede to demands to rein in their diversity and inclusion policies.One modest way to do so, said David Lopez, a former general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is to design policies that are race neutral but nonetheless likely to promote diversity — such as giving weight to whether a candidate has overcome significant obstacles.Mr. Lopez noted that, in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued that a university could take into account the effect on a candidate of having overcome racial discrimination, as long as the school didn’t consider the candidate’s race per se.But Dr. Tillery of Northwestern said making such changes to business diversity programs could be an overreaction to the ruling. While the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally precludes basing individual hiring and promotion decisions explicitly on race, it allows employers to remove obstacles that prevent companies from having a more diverse work force. Examples include training managers and recruiters to ensure that they aren’t unconsciously discriminating against racial minorities, or advertising jobs on certain campuses to increase the universe of potential applicants.In the end, companies appear to face a greater threat of litigation over discrimination against members of minority groups than from litigation over discrimination against white people. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there were about 2,350 charges of that latter form of discrimination in employment in 2021, among about 21,000 race-based charges overall.“There’s an inherent interest in picking your poison,” Dr. Tillery said. “Is it a lawsuit from Stephen Miller’s right-wing group that doesn’t live in the real world? Or is it a lawsuit from someone who says you’re discriminating against your work force and can tweet about how sexist or racist you are?”He added, “I’ll take the Stephen Miller poison any day.”J. Edward Moreno More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Added 339,000 Jobs in May Despite Economic Clouds

    by

    Employers added 339,000 workers in May, the Labor Department said, though the report also offered signs of shakiness.American employers added an unanticipated barrage of workers in May, reaffirming the labor market’s vigor.Defying expectations of a slowdown, payrolls grew by 339,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Labor Department said on Friday. The increase, the largest since January, suggested that the job market was still piping hot despite a swirl of economic headwinds.But below the surface, the report also offered evidence of softening. The unemployment rate, while still historically low, jumped to 3.7 percent, the highest level since October. In a sign that the pressure to entice workers with pay increases is lifting, wage growth eased.The dissonance offered a somewhat muddled picture that complicates the calculus for the Federal Reserve, which has been raising interest rates for more than a year to temper the labor market’s momentum and rein in price increases. Fed officials have indicated that the jobs report will be an important factor as they decide whether to raise interest rates again.“We’re still seeing a labor market that’s gradually cooling,” said Sarah House, an economist at Wells Fargo. “But it’s at a glacial place.”President Biden hailed the report, saying in a statement that “today is a good day for the American economy and American workers.” The S&P 500 index rose more than 1.4 percent as the data portrayed an economic engine that was running strong but not overheating.Looming over the report is the debt ceiling deal approved by Congress, though economists largely expect the spending caps and cuts to have only marginal impact on the labor market going forward.The hiring numbers suggest that employers remain eager for workers even in the face of high interest rates and economic uncertainty. Many are still bringing on employees to meet consumer demand, especially for services. The only major sectors to lose jobs were manufacturing and information.A slight reversal for manufacturing in MayChange in jobs in May 2023, by sector More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Job Openings Rose in April, Defying Cooling Trend

    by

    After three consecutive months of declines, job openings jumped in April, reaching 10.1 million, the Labor Department reported on Wednesday.The surge signals that job opportunities are withstanding the economic pressures that have led many to believe that the American economy may soon enter a recession.At the same time, the report — known as JOLTS, or the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey — showed that the labor market was far less feverish than it was a year earlier.The quits rate — viewed as an indicator of how confident workers are in leaving a job and finding employment elsewhere — was 3 percent, seasonally adjusted, in April 2022. Since then, it has retreated to 2.4 percent, just above its prepandemic peak. And the hiring rate was unchanged from March, which was the lowest since December 2020.Layoffs, however, decreased again, showing that employers are hesitant to let go of employees brought on board during this recovery.A bagel shop in Brooklyn advertised that it had positions to fill.Earl Wilson/The New York TimesThe data complicates the interest-rate outlook.The jump in openings may put pressure on the Federal Reserve to take interest rates even higher.The statistical relationship between high job vacancies, as calculated by the government, and low unemployment has been frequently cited by the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome H. Powell, as a key sign of the labor market’s being “unsustainably hot” and “clearly out of balance, with demand for workers substantially exceeding the supply of available workers.”But even as some economists remain unsatisfied with the progress on subduing prices, others worry that reliance on job openings as a core measure of labor market balance may lead the Fed to keep the cost of borrowing for businesses and households too high for too long, prompting a harsher downturn than necessary.“The quits rate is nearly back to prepandemic levels, the hires rate has already reverted to prepandemic pace,” Skanda Amarnath, the executive director of Employ America, a nonprofit that supports tight labor markets, wrote in a note. “JOLTS data should not drastically color this broader assessment of labor market tightness but will matter at the margins for the Fed’s own perception of labor market heat.”Some question how much weight to give the report.After peaking at a record of around 12 million in March 2022, job openings as measured by the government have fallen overall. For the past year, a mix of strong hiring for positions that were already listed and a decline in business sentiment has led to a pullback in newly created listings. But the April uptick is at least a pause in recent trends.Some economists think the JOLTS report should be taken with a grain of salt. Gregory Daco, the chief economist at EY-Parthenon, said the bump in listings could reflect summer hiring in the rebounding service sector, though he added, “I’d want to see June before assuming that summer hiring is stronger than last year.”The report is based on a survey of about 21,000 nonfarm business and government establishments. The economic research team at Goldman Sachs has made the case that since the response rate to the JOLTS report has fallen sharply since the start of the pandemic, “these findings argue for currently treating JOLTS less like the ‘true’ level of job openings.”The May jobs report will be the next gauge.The May employment report, to be released by the Labor Department on Friday, will fill out the labor market picture before Fed policymakers meet on June 13 and 14.Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect the data to show the addition of 195,000 jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis, down from 253,000 in the initial report for April. Unemployment, which was 3.4 percent in April — matching the lowest level since 1969 — is expected to rise to 3.5 percent, and the month-over-month increase in wages is expected to ease. More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    New York City Moves to Regulate How AI Is Used in Hiring

    by

    European lawmakers are finishing work on an A.I. act. The Biden administration and leaders in Congress have their plans for reining in artificial intelligence. Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, maker of the A.I. sensation ChatGPT, recommended the creation of a federal agency with oversight and licensing authority in Senate testimony last week. And the topic came up at the Group of 7 summit in Japan.Amid the sweeping plans and pledges, New York City has emerged as a modest pioneer in A.I. regulation.The city government passed a law in 2021 and adopted specific rules last month for one high-stakes application of the technology: hiring and promotion decisions. Enforcement begins in July.The city’s law requires companies using A.I. software in hiring to notify candidates that an automated system is being used. It also requires companies to have independent auditors check the technology annually for bias. Candidates can request and be told what data is being collected and analyzed. Companies will be fined for violations.New York City’s focused approach represents an important front in A.I. regulation. At some point, the broad-stroke principles developed by governments and international organizations, experts say, must be translated into details and definitions. Who is being affected by the technology? What are the benefits and harms? Who can intervene, and how?“Without a concrete use case, you are not in a position to answer those questions,” said Julia Stoyanovich, an associate professor at New York University and director of its Center for Responsible A.I.But even before it takes effect, the New York City law has been a magnet for criticism. Public interest advocates say it doesn’t go far enough, while business groups say it is impractical.The complaints from both camps point to the challenge of regulating A.I., which is advancing at a torrid pace with unknown consequences, stirring enthusiasm and anxiety.Uneasy compromises are inevitable.Ms. Stoyanovich is concerned that the city law has loopholes that may weaken it. “But it’s much better than not having a law,” she said. “And until you try to regulate, you won’t learn how.”The law applies to companies with workers in New York City, but labor experts expect it to influence practices nationally. At least four states — California, New Jersey, New York and Vermont — and the District of Columbia are also working on laws to regulate A.I. in hiring. And Illinois and Maryland have enacted laws limiting the use of specific A.I. technologies, often for workplace surveillance and the screening of job candidates.The New York City law emerged from a clash of sharply conflicting viewpoints. The City Council passed it during the final days of the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio. Rounds of hearings and public comments, more than 100,000 words, came later — overseen by the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, the rule-making agency.The result, some critics say, is overly sympathetic to business interests.“What could have been a landmark law was watered down to lose effectiveness,” said Alexandra Givens, president of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a policy and civil rights organization.That’s because the law defines an “automated employment decision tool” as technology used “to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making,” she said. The rules adopted by the city appear to interpret that phrasing narrowly so that A.I. software will require an audit only if it is the lone or primary factor in a hiring decision or is used to overrule a human, Ms. Givens said.That leaves out the main way the automated software is used, she said, with a hiring manager invariably making the final choice. The potential for A.I.-driven discrimination, she said, typically comes in screening hundreds or thousands of candidates down to a handful or in targeted online recruiting to generate a pool of candidates.Ms. Givens also criticized the law for limiting the kinds of groups measured for unfair treatment. It covers bias by sex, race and ethnicity, but not discrimination against older workers or those with disabilities.“My biggest concern is that this becomes the template nationally when we should be asking much more of our policymakers,” Ms. Givens said.“This is a significant regulatory success,” said Robert Holden, center, a member of the City Council who formerly led its committee on technology.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesThe law was narrowed to sharpen it and make sure it was focused and enforceable, city officials said. The Council and the worker protection agency heard from many voices, including public-interest activists and software companies. Its goal was to weigh trade-offs between innovation and potential harm, officials said.“This is a significant regulatory success toward ensuring that A.I. technology is used ethically and responsibly,” said Robert Holden, who was the chair of the Council committee on technology when the law was passed and remains a committee member.New York City is trying to address new technology in the context of federal workplace laws with guidelines on hiring that date to the 1970s. The main Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule states that no practice or method of selection used by employers should have a “disparate impact” on a legally protected group like women or minorities.Businesses have criticized the law. In a filing this year, the Software Alliance, a trade group that includes Microsoft, SAP and Workday, said the requirement for independent audits of A.I. was “not feasible” because “the auditing landscape is nascent,” lacking standards and professional oversight bodies.But a nascent field is a market opportunity. The A.I. audit business, experts say, is only going to grow. It is already attracting law firms, consultants and start-ups.Companies that sell A.I. software to assist in hiring and promotion decisions have generally come to embrace regulation. Some have already undergone outside audits. They see the requirement as a potential competitive advantage, providing proof that their technology expands the pool of job candidates for companies and increases opportunity for workers.“We believe we can meet the law and show what good A.I. looks like,” said Roy Wang, general counsel of Eightfold AI, a Silicon Valley start-up that produces software used to assist hiring managers.The New York City law also takes an approach to regulating A.I. that may become the norm. The law’s key measurement is an “impact ratio,” or a calculation of the effect of using the software on a protected group of job candidates. It does not delve into how an algorithm makes decisions, a concept known as “explainability.”In life-affecting applications like hiring, critics say, people have a right to an explanation of how a decision was made. But A.I. like ChatGPT-style software is becoming more complex, perhaps putting the goal of explainable A.I. out of reach, some experts say.“The focus becomes the output of the algorithm, not the working of the algorithm,” said Ashley Casovan, executive director of the Responsible AI Institute, which is developing certifications for the safe use of A.I. applications in the workplace, health care and finance. More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Semiconductor Boom Faces a Worker Shortage

    by

    Strengthened by billions of federal dollars, semiconductor companies plan to create thousands of jobs. But officials say there might not be enough people to fill them.Maxon Wille, an 18-year-old in Surprise, Ariz., was driving toward Interstate 17 last year when he noticed a massive construction site: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company at work on its new factory in Phoenix.A few weeks later, as he was watching YouTube, an advertisement popped up for a local community college’s 10-day program that trains people to become semiconductor technicians. He graduated from the course this month and now hopes to work at the plant once it opens.“I can see this being the next big thing,” Mr. Wille said.Semiconductor manufacturers say they will need to attract more workers like Mr. Wille to staff the plants that are being built across the United States. America is on the cusp of a semiconductor manufacturing boom, strengthened by billions of dollars that the federal government is funneling into the sector. President Biden had said the funding will create thousands of well-paying jobs, but one question looms large: Will there be enough workers to fill them?“My biggest fear is investing in all this infrastructure and not having the people to work there,” said Shari Liss, the executive director of the SEMI Foundation, a nonprofit arm of SEMI, an association that represents electronics manufacturing companies. “The impact could be really substantial if we don’t figure out how to create excitement and interest in this industry.”Lawmakers passed the 2022 CHIPS Act with lofty ambitions to remake the United States into a semiconductor powerhouse, in part to reduce America’s reliance on foreign nations for the tiny chips that power everything from dishwashers to computers to cars. The law included $39 billion to fund the construction of new and expanded semiconductor facilities, and manufacturers that want a slice of the subsidies have already announced expansions across the country.More than 50 new facility projects have been announced since the CHIPS Act was introduced, and private companies have pledged more than $210 billion in investments, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association.But that investment has run headfirst into the tightest labor market in years, with employers across the country struggling to find workers. Semiconductor manufacturers have long found it difficult to hire workers because of a lack of awareness of the industry and too few students entering relevant academic fields. Company officials say they expect it to become even more difficult to hire for a range of critical positions, including the construction workers building the plants, the technicians operating equipment and engineers designing chips.The U.S. semiconductor industry could face a shortage of about 70,000 to 90,000 workers over the next few years, according to a Deloitte report. McKinsey has also projected a shortfall of about 300,000 engineers and 90,000 skilled technicians in the United States by 2030.Semiconductor manufacturers have struggled to hire more employees, in part because, officials say, there are not enough skilled workers and they have to compete with big technology firms for engineers. Many students who graduate with advanced engineering degrees in the United States were born abroad, and immigration rules make it challenging to obtain visas to work in the country.Ronnie Chatterji, the White House’s CHIPS implementation coordinator, said that filling the new jobs would be a big challenge, but that he felt confident Americans would want them as they became more aware of the industry’s domestic expansion.“While it hasn’t been the sexiest job opportunity for folks compared to some of the other things that they’re graduating with, it also hasn’t been on the radar,” Mr. Chatterji said. He added that America would be less “prosperous” if companies could increase output but lacked the employees to do so.In an effort to meet the labor demand, the Biden administration said this month that it would create five initial “work force hubs” in cities like Phoenix and Columbus, Ohio, to help train more women, people of color and other underrepresented workers in industries like semiconductor manufacturing.Administration and company officials have also pushed for changes to better retain foreign-born STEM graduates, but immigration remains a controversial topic in Washington, and few are optimistic about reforms.Some industry leaders are looking to technology as an antidote, since automation and artificial intelligence can amplify the output of a single engineer, but companies are mostly putting their faith into training programs. Federal officials have backed that effort and pointed out that funding in the CHIPS Act could be used for work force development.Intel, which announced plans to spend $20 billion on two new chip factories in Arizona and more than $20 billion on a new chip manufacturing complex in Ohio, has invested millions in partnerships with community colleges and universities to train technicians and expand relevant curriculum.Gabriela Cruz Thompson, the director of university research collaboration at Intel Labs, said the company anticipated creating 6,700 jobs over the next five to 10 years. About 70 percent would be for technicians who typically have a two-year degree or certificate.A silicon wafer, a thin material essential for manufacturing semiconductors, at a chip-packaging facility in Santa Clara, Calif.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesShe said that the industry had faced staffing challenges for years, and that she was concerned about the number of “available and talented skilled workers” who could fill all of the new Intel positions.“I am confident,” she said. “But am I fully certain, 100 percent? No.”Micron, which pledged as much as $100 billion over the next two decades or more to build a huge chip factory complex in New York, has also deployed new work force programs, including ones that train veterans and teach middle and high school students about STEM careers through “chip camps.”Bo Machayo, the director of U.S. federal affairs at Micron, said the company anticipated needing roughly 9,000 employees after its full build-out in the region.“We understand that it’s a challenge, but we also look at it as an opportunity,” he said.To be considered for the federal subsidies, manufacturers must submit applications to the Commerce Department that include detailed plans about how they will recruit and retain workers. Firms requesting more than $150 million are expected to provide affordable, high-quality child care.“We don’t think that a company can just post a bunch of jobs online and hope that the right work force shows up,” said Kevin Gallagher, a senior adviser to the commerce secretary.The lack of interest in the industry has been evident at academic institutions. Karl Hirschman, the director of microelectronic engineering at the Rochester Institute of Technology, said the university was “nowhere close” to the maximum enrollment for its microelectronic engineering degree program, which sets up students for semiconductor-related careers. Enrollment averages about 20 new undergraduates each year, compared with more than 200 for the university’s mechanical engineering program.Although students graduating with more popular engineering degrees could work in the semiconductor industry, Mr. Hirschman said, many of them are more aware of and attracted to tech firms like Google and Facebook.“We do not have enough students to fill the need,” he said. “It’s only going to get more challenging.”Community colleges, universities and school districts are creating or expanding programs to attract more students to the industry.In Maricopa County, Ariz., three community colleges have teamed up with Intel to offer a “quick start” program to prepare students to become entry-level technicians in just 10 days. During the four-hour classes, students learn the basics of how chips are made, practice using hand tools and try on the head-to-toe gowns that technicians wear.More than 680 students have enrolled in the program since it began in July, said Leah Palmer, the executive director of the Arizona Advanced Manufacturing Institute at Mesa Community College. The program is free for in-state students who complete it and pass a certification test.In Oregon last year, the Hillsboro School District started a two-year advanced manufacturing apprenticeship program that allows 16- to 18-year-old students to earn high school credit and be paid to work on the manufacturing floors of companies in the semiconductor industry. Five students are participating, and officials hope to add at least three more to the next cohort, said Claudia Rizo, the district’s youth apprenticeship project manager.“Our hope is that students would have a job offer with the companies if they decide to stay full time, but also be open to the possibility of pursuing postsecondary education through college or university,” Ms. Rizo said.Universities are also expanding undergraduate and graduate engineering programs. Purdue started a semiconductor degree program last year, and Syracuse, which has worked with Micron and 20 other institutions to enhance related curriculum, plans to increase its engineering enrollment 50 percent over the next three to five years.Students participated in an event hosted by Micron at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, N.Y.Benjamin Cleeton for The New York TimesAt Onondaga Community College, near Micron’s build-out in New York, officials will offer a new two-year degree and one-year certificate in electromechanical technology starting this fall. The programs were already underway before Micron’s announcement to build the chip factory complex but would help students gain the qualifications needed to work there, said Timothy Stedman, the college’s dean of natural and applied sciences.Although he felt optimistic, he said interest could be lower than officials hoped. Enrollment in the college’s electrical and mechanical technology programs has noticeably declined from two decades ago because more students have started to view four-year college degrees as the default path.“We’re starting to see the pendulum swing a little bit as people have realized that these are well-paying jobs,” Mr. Stedman said. “But I think there still needs to be a fair amount of work done.”Ana Swanson More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Employers Added 253,000 Jobs Despite Economic Worries

    by

    Employers added 253,000 jobs in April and unemployment fell to 3.4 percent, but the labor market’s strength complicates the Fed’s inflation fight.The labor market is still defying gravity — for now.Employers added 253,000 jobs in April on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Labor Department reported Friday, in a departure from the cooling trend that had marked the first quarter and was expected to continue.The unemployment rate was 3.4 percent, down from 3.5 percent in March, and matched the level in January, which was the lowest since 1969. Wages also popped slightly, growing 4.4 percent over the past year.The higher-than-forecast job gain complicates the Federal Reserve’s potential shift toward a pause in interest rate increases. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said on Wednesday that the central bank might continue to raise rates if new data showed the economy wasn’t slowing enough to keep prices down.It’s also an indication that the failure of three banks and the resulting pullback on lending, which is expected to hit smaller businesses particularly hard, hasn’t yet hamstrung job creation.“All these things are telling us it’s not a hard stop; it’s creating a headwind, but not a debilitating headwind,” said Carl Riccadonna, the chief U.S. economist at BNP Paribas. “A gradual downturn is happening, but it sure is stubborn and persistent in the trend.” Despite the strong showing in April, the labor market continues to gently descend from blistering highs.Downward revisions to the previous two months’ data meaningfully altered the spring employment picture, subtracting a total of 149,000 jobs. That brings the three-month average to 222,000 jobs, a clear slowdown from the 400,000 added on average in 2022. Most economists expect a more marked downshift later in the year.Jobs increased across industriesChange in jobs in April 2023, by sector More