EQRoy / Shutterstock, Inc.
The US Department of Labor on Monday published a proposal for a new regulation governing multi-employer 401(k) plans. The proposed new rule would make it easier for small businesses to offer retirement plans to their employees by broadening the criteria under which organizations can form multi-employer plans, Employee Benefit News explains:
The arrangements are currently allowed for employers with an affiliation or connection, such as companies with a common owner or members of the same industry trade association. Under the proposed rule, MEPs could be formed by associations of employers in a city, county, state or a multistate metropolitan area, or in a particular industry nationwide, according to the DOL.
Sole proprietors, as well as their families, would be also permitted to join such plans, the DOL said. Professional employer organizations, which are human resources companies that contractually assume certain employment responsibilities for its client employers, could also sponsor plans.
The proposal comes in response to an executive order President Donald Trump signed at the end of the summer, directing his administration to remove barriers to small businesses offering retirement benefits through the multi-employer plans. Employees of smaller organizations are less likely than those at large firms to be offered employer-sponsored retirement plans.
In April 2017, new regulations came into effect in the UK requiring all organizations with 250 or more employees to publish their gender pay gaps. One year later, the first round of mandatory reports showed that the median pay gap among those reporting stood at 9.7 percent, with 78 percent of firms paying men more than women. On a more granular level, the reports illustrated the great degree to which women’s underrepresentation in senior roles, especially those with high bonus potential, contributes to the pay gap in professional fields.
Now, a committee of MPs is urging the government to expand the reporting mandate to smaller firms, as well as to require companies to publish their plans for closing these gaps, the Guardian reported last week:
All companies with more than 50 employees should have to report their gender pay gap from 2020, said the business, energy and industrial strategy committee (BEIS). Currently only firms with more than 250 employees have to report their gender pay gap, leaving half of the UK workforce without knowledge of their workplace’s gap. The committee said the government had to take fresh action to close the gap, and should force companies to publish action plans and narrative reports about what they were doing to narrow it.
It also criticised the government for “failing to clarify the legal sanctions available to the EHRC [Equalities and Human Rights Commission] to pursue those failing to comply and we recommend that the government rectifies this error at the next opportunity”.
The committee called out those companies that excluded partner pay from their pay gap reports, including many of London’s major law firms, which its chair Rachel Reeves said “made a mockery of the system.”
Laura Hinton, chief people officer at PwC, told the committee that it was time for British businesses to start thinking about gender pay equity as more than just a compliance concern and couple their pay gap reporting with concrete action plans and accountability. The committee is proposing that boards of directors introduce key performance indicators for reducing pay gaps and that remuneration committees be required to explain how their pay policy decisions reflect their commitment to pay equity, according to Personnel Today.
The US economy added 223,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to a post-recession low of 3.8 percent, the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed on Friday. May continued the US labor market’s growth streak into its 92nd month, the longest such expansion in history. New jobs numbers were also revised upward by a total of 15,000 for the preceding two months, to 159,000 jobs in April and 155,000 in March. Retail, health care, and construction were the leading sectors adding jobs last month.
Compared to the previous year, the unemployment rate was half a percentage point lower in May, with the total number of unemployed persons reduced by 772,000. The number of long-term unemployed was little changed from April to May, standing at 1.2 million, but this figure had also declined by 476,000 over the past year. Underemployment remains an issue, with 4.9 million US workers working part-time who would prefer to be working full-time.
In the first five months of 2018, the workforce has grown by an average of 207,000 jobs per month, the Wall Street Journal adds, beating the average monthly growth of 182,000 in 2017. May’s numbers exceeded the expectations of economists surveyed by the Journal, who had expected 190,000 new jobs and a 3.9 percent unemployment rate. The last time the US recorded a 3.8 percent rate was in April 2000, and the last time before that was in 1969. The falling rate reflects a mix of positive and negative developments, however, as the labor force participation rate ticked down from 62.8 to 62.7 percent and the number of people not in the labor force increased by about 170,000.
Wage growth remains real the sticking point in the US labor market. Average hourly earnings in the private sector rose by 8 cents last month, to $26.92, for a year-over year increase of 71 cents or 2.7 percent. This increase represents a slight improvement over the persistent stagnation in wages in the years following the recession, but annual wage growth has not cracked the 3 percent mark since 2009.
The tax reform bill passed by the US Congress in December, which drastically lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent, has prompted numerous large employers to announce raises, bonuses, or upgrades to their benefits packages as a means of passing on some of their tax savings to their employees. On Wednesday, the restaurant chain Chipotle announced a round of one-time cash bonuses and stock grants, as well as increased parental leave coverage for many employees. On Thursday, CVS said that it would boost hourly employees’ pay from $9 to $11 per hour, among other pay rate increases, and now provide up to four weeks of paid parental leave for full-time employees. Walmart, Starbucks, Disney, Wells Fargo, and other large companies have made similar moves.
What remains unclear, however, is whether these rewards (most of which consist of one-time bonuses rather than permanent wage increases) are sustainable and whether the benefits of the tax cut will redound to the majority of Americans who don’t work for large corporations. Small business owners are reluctant to make similar moves, much as they would like to, until they have a better sense of how much money they will actually save from the tax reform. As the Associated Press’ Joyce Rosenberg pointed out this week, smaller companies have less clarity on that issue than large corporations do, and questions remain as to how new deduction rules will pan out for small business owners. In addition, small and mid-sized businesses have nowhere near the same cash reserves or credit lines as big companies do, which makes the awarding of bonuses and raises a much riskier endeavor.
Wages at small businesses in the US are beginning to grow at a pace more common to larger companies, the Wall Street Journal’s Ruth Simon reported last week, driven by increasing demand for talent as well as the impact of pay transparency websites like Glassdoor and PayScale. An analysis of ADP data by Moody’s Analytics found that average raises at companies with fewer than 50 employees stood at 1.07 percent over the past three years, significantly more than the 0.69 percent average increase the analysis found for firms of all sizes.
Small businesses have found it necessary to offer more competitive pay packages both to attract new talent and to keep their current employees from getting poached by larger and wealthier firms. Employees, particularly younger workers, also have a better sense of what kind of compensation they can expect to earn with their skills and experience, and are not shy about demanding the pay they think they deserve.
The problem, Simon adds, is that these smaller companies tend to have fewer resources to work with overall, so increases in employee compensation tend to be balanced by cuts in other investments, such as equipment purchases or upgrades. This likely exacerbates the inequality between smaller and larger firms, as companies with larger war chests are better able to pay top dollar for in-demand talent while also investing in other aspects of the business.
Just weeks after launching its highly anticipated machine learning-enhanced job search feature Google for Jobs, the search giant has rolled out Google Hire, a recruiting app, as part of its G Suite of enterprise software offerings, according to an announcement on Google’s company blog:
Hire and G Suite are made to work well together so recruiting team members can focus on their top priorities instead of wasting time copy-pasting across tools. For example, you can:
- Communicate with candidates in Gmail or Hire and your emails will sync automatically in both.
- Schedule interviews in Hire with visibility into an interviewer’s schedule from Calendar. Hire also automatically includes important details in Calendar invites, like contact information, the full interview schedule and what questions each interviewer should focus on.
- Track candidate pipeline in Hire, and then analyze and visualize the data in Sheets. …
Now, all U.S.-based businesses under 1,000 employees that use G Suite can purchase Hire to land the best talent.
We first caught wind of Google Hire in April, when word got out that the company was testing it. A Google executive explains to Mike Prokopeak at Workforce why they decided to only make it available to small businesses:
Businesses of that size have a different set of hiring needs than larger enterprises, said Dmitri Krakovsky, a vice president at Google. “Small businesses don’t have deep pockets,” he said. “We wanted to level the playing field for them.”
Oxford evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar is most famous for his theory that humans can only maintain personal relationships with about 150 people at any given time, so much so that the figure is referred to as “Dunbar’s number.” Quartz’s Kevin Delaney explores the application of Dunbar’s number to management in the context of growing startups:
“There is no question that the dynamics of organizations change once they exceed about 150 or so,” says Dunbar. “The [Hutterite faith group] deliberately split their communities at this size in order to avoid having to have both hierarchies and a police force. Keeping things below 150 means you can manage the system by peer pressure, whereas above 150 you need some kind of top down, discipline-based management system.”
At a startup, once the staff exceeds 150 people, employees are no longer the single, cohesive, culture-reinforcing unit they were during the company’s earliest days. Staffers become more specialized and entrenched with their teams, which are probably sprawled across an office, perhaps on multiple floors or in several locations.