Copyright (c) 2009 Cornell University ILR School All rights reserved. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs Recent documents in Policy & Issue Briefs en-us Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:21:34 PST 3600 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/53 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/53 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:59:58 PST [Excerpt] Given the extraordinary scope of the current economic crisis, no single policy can fully address the challenge of job creation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has spurred job creation substantially, but the deterioration in economic prospects since it was passed demands a renewed focus on job growth in the near term. A well-designed temporary federal job creation tax credit should be an integral part of the effort to boost job growth. Besides having broad-based, bipartisan political support, the best argument for a job creation tax credit is simply that it will create almost 3 million jobs in 2010 and over 2 million in 2011. Moreover, it will stimulate the entrepreneurial character of Americans by giving 6.5 million employers and millions more aspiring entrepreneurs a limited-time offer to expand their production or start new endeavors, at a discount. Because choices about whom to hire and what work they should do are left to independent decision makers who can act immediately, the credit will have just as quick an impact. This paper outlines a version of this credit that aims to induce increases in payroll--either through adding new jobs or by increasing the hours or wages of current workers--and estimates its economic impact: A job creation tax credit that refunded 15% of new wage costs in 2010 and 10% of new wage costs in 2011 could create 5.1 million additional jobs in the U.S. economy over these two years. The net cost of the tax credit would be roughly $27 billion, or about $5,400 per new full-time-equivalent job created over these two years. John H. Bishop http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/52 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/52 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:33:37 PST [Excerpt] A newsletter on workplace issues and research from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. Maralyn Edid http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/51 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/51 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:13:18 PST [Excerpt] Does the tendency of groups to take credit for their success without acknowledging the input of specific group members affect subsequent group performance? In a word, yes. This "group-serving bias" may cause groups to ignore or underestimate the potentially unique contributions made by each individual member, a common practice that can lead to inferior outcomes. When groups ascribe their success to individuals, they are more likely to explore a wide range of divergent alternatives before reaching consensus. Attribution to individuals also facilitates the sharing of information that is known to only one member of the group but is critical to making the right, or best, decision. Jack A. Goncalo http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/48 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/48 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:02:29 PST [Excerpt] Local union leaders engage in activities that concern internal affairs and others that pertain to external matters. These internal and external orientations are elements of leadership that affect how members feel about and perceive their union, which in turn affect their allegiance and commitment to the union. Specifically, beliefs about how well the union delivers on wages, benefits, and working conditions (instrumentality) and perceptions of wage equity and the degree of rank-and-file voice in decisions (distributive and procedural justice, respectively) at least partially mediate the link between local leaders' actions and members' loyalty to, and willingness to work for, the union. Tove H. Hammer http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/47 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/47 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:56:28 PDT [Excerpt] Motivation- and empowerment- enhancing human resource (HR) practices are positively associated with employees' collective emotional attachment to, and identification with, a company and its goals; this affective commitment, in turn, is negatively associated with the aggregate of employee decisions to exit an organization. Thus, collective affective commitment mediates the relationship between these two sets of HR practices and voluntary turnover. Practices that enhance workforce skills, however, are not mediated by collective affective commitment; rather, they are directly and positively associated with increased voluntary turnover. Patrick M. Wright http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/46 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/46 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:16:32 PDT [Excerpt] Industry clusters are associated with greater job hopping and faster growth in workers' earning power relative to the experience of workers at less spatially concentrated companies. Workers in these clusters tend to accept lower starting salaries than peers at more isolated firms in anticipation of rapid gains that accompany movement from job to job within the cluster and the accumulation of industry-specific knowledge. Higher earnings observed among workers in clustered firms may also reflect choices made by workers with certain characteristics to seek employment in an area with a high concentration of similar firms and by companies with certain characteristics to locate in such an area. Matthew Freedman http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/45 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/45 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:47:36 PDT [Excerpt] Group attitudes about satisfaction and commitment are negatively associated with absenteeism and interact in predicting absenteeism at the unit level. The effects are particularly strong in areas where jobs are plentiful but fade away where jobs are scarce. In other words, higher levels of absenteeism in a work group are associated with lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in labor markets with low unemployment, and vice versa. Organizational commitment is the crucial factor: absenteeism is higher in work units with low levels of commitment regardless of the level of satisfaction. Group norms about absenteeism and other contextual factors, such as work processes, contribute to the variance among work units. Satisfaction and commitment are not related to changes in absenteeism over time. John Hausknecht http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/44 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/44 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:10:53 PDT [Excerpt] The decline in union density and collective bargaining coverage has created a representation gap that civil society organizations only partially bridge. Their offer of mutual insurance and political and legal advocacy on issues of concern to workers is no substitute for collective bargaining, a function that resides entirely within the union portfolio. Growing wage inequality is the clearest indication that representation without bargaining provides workers little protection against the power of employers and "the state." Alliances between unions and civil society organizations may help labor reach potential members and advance workers' non-bargaining interests. Rebecca Givan http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/43 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/43 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:58:01 PDT [Excerpt] A newsletter on workplace issues and research from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. Maralyn Edid, Editor http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/42 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briefs/42 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:33:50 PDT [Excerpt] Community colleges, on average, serve 335 students with disabilities, although that number climbs to 5,000 at the largest college surveyed for this project. Nearly all community colleges that participated in the survey rely on the web for a variety of student services, but only half have instituted requirements regarding web accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Actual evaluations of accessibility and ease of use revealed that none of the websites analyzed complied with all federal standards on accessibility, and many web pages encompassed usability obstacles (e.g., unfamiliar terminology, unintuitive navigation schemes, and hard-to-read design elements) that affected disabled and non-disabled individuals alike. William Erickson