Every spring, the talent acquisition software company iCIMS surveys college graduates in the US to gauge their expectations and ambitions as they prepare to enter the workforce. This year’s survey, which SHRM’s Roy Maurer flagged earlier this week, finds that this year’s graduating class is expecting higher starting salaries than their peers in recent years: On average, they expect to earn $54,010 in their first job, slightly more than the class of 2017 and almost $8,000 more than the class of 2016. Last year’s graduates were a bit unrealistic in their pay expectations, despite a tight labor market, with recruiters reporting starting salaries well below grads’ aspirations.
This year, Maurer notes, employers’ pursestrings are looking a little looser:
“This year’s graduates are confident in their ability to find the job they want after graduation, and a well-paying one at that,” said Susan Vitale, chief marketing officer at iCIMS. … The data revealed that recruiters estimate they will pay entry-level employees $56,532 on average this year—a substantial jump of more than $10,000 since last year, when the estimate was $45,361 on average. “For employers, even with an abundance of educated candidates, nearly 80 percent of recruiters are finding filling entry-level positions more challenging than they did three years ago,” Vitale said. “In response, recruiters have upped their game by offering better salaries and benefits, increasing training and development, and enhancing their employee referral programs.”
Maurer also highlights another survey from Yello, which found that a majority of graduates were putting priority on career advancement in their first job searches. Nearly half of respondents to the Yello survey said they were planning to stay with their first employer for more than three years, in another point of evidence against the myth of the millennial job hopper (though these graduates might properly be classified as members of Generation Z). These findings, Yello CEO and co-founder Jason Weingarten told Maurer, suggest that recruiters should be focusing their value propositions for graduates on opportunities for long-term growth and development. Some employers are already responding to the demand these surveys show for higher salaries and clear career paths, such as Morgan Stanley, which recently raised starting pay and accelerated the promotion path for its junior investment bankers.
Unemployment across the US fell to 3.9 percent last month, its lowest level since December 2000, the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed, as the economy added 164,000 jobs. The increase in jobs was below the average monthly gain of 191,000 over the prior 12 months and the median estimate of 193,000 provided by economists to Bloomberg. However, job gains from the previous two months were also revised upward by a net 30,000 jobs. A broader measure of unemployment, including those marginally attached to the labor force or employed part time for economic reasons, fell from 8 percent in March to 7.8 percent in April.
Wage growth remained slow, however, with average hourly earnings rising 4 cents to $26.84, representing a 2.6 percent year-over-year-increase. That figure has dwindled from 2.9 percent in January, dampening hopes that the tight labor market would finally lead to accelerating wage growth for American workers. Nonetheless, Josh Wright, Chief Economist at iCIMS, tells the Washington Post that it’s “an exciting headline for the worker”:
“A real Goldilocks number, with job growth being great.” But pay stayed flat, so the Federal Reserve won’t likely feel pressure to raise rates before June. In other words, Wright said, the markets should respond favorably. “What we’re seeing here is steadiness,” he said. …
If the expansion further gains steam, analysts at the Fed said the unemployment rate could reach 3.7 percent this year, a figure not seen since 1969.
Also, the New York Times points out, “A year-over-year increase of 3 percent in hourly earnings is considered the trip wire that could prompt the Federal Reserve to raise its benchmark interest rate more aggressively than it has signaled”:
What would you do with a $3,000 bonus? Take a trip to Walt Disney World? Well, if you’re working as a chef at the Florida resort this summer, that might be where you got the bonus in the first place. In its effort to fill 3,500 seasonal roles at its sprawling entertainment complex, Disney is offering outsized signing bonuses for some of these hires, including unskilled and part-time employees, Orlando Sentinel business writer Paul Brinkmann reported last week:
A housekeeper hired this year at Disney World’s resorts can get a hiring bonus of $1,250 for a job that pays $10.50 per hour. That’s up from last year’s $500 hiring bonus. And it’s for full-time or part-time hires. Full-time or part-time lifeguards this year can get a $1000 hiring bonus, double what the entertainment giant offered last year, and that is for full-time or part-time jobs, according to job postings. Seasonal lifeguards get a $500 bonus.
Bus drivers can get a $500 hiring bonus – the same as last year. Culinary chefs can get a $3,000 bonus. The bonuses are given after training periods and 30 days on the job.
Universal Orlando, the other major theme park in central Florida, is also hiring 3,000 seasonal workers this year, to whom it is offering “competitive salaries and comprehensive benefits packages.” Both parks are in the midst of holding job fairs to fill these thousands of positions. Disney World’s double bonuses are just the latest anecdotal indicator of the historically tight labor market in the US today. They also illustrate how the state of the labor market, combined with other trends, is affecting seasonal hiring specifically.
Should US employers still be rejecting candidates or firing employees for using marijuana? Maybe not, US Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta suggested in comments to Congress this week, according to Politico’s Morning Shift:
Acosta said Tuesday that employers should rethink the practice of drug testing every job applicant, which he suggested could keep qualified people out of the workforce. Acosta’s remarks came in response to a question from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing. Blumenauer, who’s from a state that legalized recreational marijuana, said he’s concerned that legal pot shows up “in ways that are disqualifying” on drug tests, and asked Acosta what could be done to “unleash” those workers’ potential.
“There are sometimes valid health and safety reasons why an individual that cannot pass a drug test shouldn’t hold a certain job,” Acosta said. However, he also said some employers “make the assumption that because there’s a negative result on a test they would not be a good employee.”
Acosta was testifying in a hearing on Jobs and Opportunity: Federal Perspectives on the Jobs Gap, part of a series of hearings the committee is holding as it prepares to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. While the secretary did not say in so many words that employers should stop drug testing their employees, he expressed the opinion that “it’s important to take a step back … and ask, are we aligning our drug policies and our drug testing policies with what’s right for the workforce?”
Blumenauer’s question to Acosta and the secretary’s less-than-categorical answer both reflect the significant degree to which employers are being forced to rethink their drug policies in light of changing attitudes toward cannabis and the growing number of jurisdictions where it has been decriminalized or legalized for either medicinal or recreational uses. Businesses have begun lobbying the Trump administration to issue guidelines on how to navigate the conflict between federal drug laws—under which marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I substance along with heroin, ecstasy, and LSD—and increasingly liberal state laws.
Keep Smiling Photography/Shutterstock.com
US nonfarm payrolls rose by a seasonally adjusted 103,000 in March, while the more robust numbers from January and February were revised downward by a cumulative 50,000 in Friday’s monthly report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, representing a marked decline from February, when the workforce grew at the strongest monthly rate since July 2016. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent for a sixth month, still the lowest since December 2000, while wages rose only slightly, by 8 cents an hour for a year-over-year increase of 2.7 percent.
Labor force participation fell incrementally from 63.0 percent in February to 62.9 percent in March. That’s better than the recent low of 62.3 percent in 2015, but the rate remains nearly the lowest the US has seen since the late 1970s, the Wall Street Journal’s Eric Morath observes. With the economy at approximately full employment, the government and employers alike are hoping to entice more non-working Americans off the sidelines, but have had limited success so far in that endeavor.
Friday’s numbers fell short of expectations. Economists surveyed by the Journal had predicted 178,000 new jobs and an unemployment rate of 4.0 percent. ADP’s independent monthly report, released on Wednesday, said companies had added 241,000 jobs last month. ADP’s numbers always tend to be higher those from the BLS, but this month’s divergence is unusually wide.
One possible factor in March’s sharp decline is the weather: The US was hit with a series of late winter storms this year, and as Washington Post economics correspondent Heather Long noted, there was major snowfall the week the BLS conducted its survey, which may have depressed its count and could mean these figures will be revised upward in future reports.
For Ben Casselman, economics reporter at the New York Times, the big-picture takeaways from the jobs numbers in early 2018 are that wage growth is still slower than economists would tend to expect and would like to see given the tightness of the labor market, and that while labor force participation isn’t falling off due to retirements in an aging workforce, Americans are not returning to the workforce in sufficient numbers to fill the shortages in the labor pool:
McDonald’s announced last week that it was expanding its education benefits program for employees to both increase the value of the benefit and widen the pool of employees who are eligible for it, USA Today reported on Thursday:
Previously, employees had to be on the job for nine months before having a shot at tuition assistance, but that’s been dropped to 90 days. Plus, the weekly shift minimum was 20 hours and now is 15 hours. The changes will make close to 400,000 U.S. employees eligible, the company said. Now, staffers can get as much as $2,500 a year from the Archways to Opportunity program for a trade school, a community college or a four-year university — up from $700. For managers, the figure jumps from $1,050 per year to $3,000.
Some employees’ family members will also now be eligible for assistance. The changes, which McDonald’s attributed to a tight labor market and the savings it accrued from the recent cut in the corporate tax rate, are funded by a $150 million commitment the fast-food giant is making to the program over the coming five years. Since launching in 2015, the company says, Archways to Opportunity has distributed over $21 million in assistance to around 24,000 people.
The program, which is open to employees of both McDonald’s franchises and company-owned restaurants, is offered in partnership with the online education company Cengage Learning. Amanda Eisenberg goes into more detail about how the expanded program will work at Employee Benefit News:
The February employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, released on Friday, depict a strong labor market, with the US economy adding 313,000 jobs: the largest monthly increase since July 2016 and extending the longest recorded labor market expansion in US history into its 89th month. Job growth figures were also revised upward for December and January by a total of 54,000. The unemployment rate held steady for the fifth month straight at 4.1 percent, the lowest rate since December 2000.
Economists had expected growth of around 200,000 jobs. Some observers attribute the spike in hiring to the massive corporate tax cut passed by Congress in December, but this is not a consensus view, the Washington Post reports:
“This is a result of fiscal stimulus — in other words: a $1.3 billion tax cut,” [Glassdoor chief economist Andrew Chamberlain] said. “Businesses are making decisions on a forward-looking basis. Even if the dollars aren’t in the pockets of companies yet, they’re making plans.”
Cathy Barrera, head economist at ZipRecuiter, an employment site, questioned that interpretation, asserting it’s still too early to see an impact from the tax measure. “Really for businesses, what matters is demand for their products,” she said. “If demand for products hasn’t gone up, there’s not more work for these companies to be doing.”
The only piece of not-so-great news in Friday’s jobs report was that February did not deliver the acceleration in wage growth that many economists were hoping for. Average hourly earnings for private nonfarm employees rose by 4 cents to $26.75, for a year-over-year figure of 2.6 percent, lower than the 2.9 percent figure reported for January (revised downward in this month’s report to 2.8 percent).
The combination of large job growth and low wage growth was reassuring news for Wall Street, the New York Times adds, as it points to continued economic expansion but eases fears of runaway inflation: