Pub Date : 2002-11-01DOI: 10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.171
D. Mitchell
This chapter examines the current state of union-management relations in California, based on records of public agencies and related data. A review of patterns of unionization in the state shows that two-thirds of the state's union-represented workers are in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas, although Sacramento has a higher unionization rate. As is the case nationally, California's public sector is highly unionized, with approximately half the workforce covered by union contracts. In the private sector, union-represented workers are found in a variety of occupations and industries. Some work in manufacturing, as the common stereotype would indicate, but large concentrations are also found in construction, grocery and food warehouses, and health care. Some of the most dramatic organizing successes in the state during recent years have involved low-wage immigrant workers, such as janitors and home health care workers. The chapter reviews recent developments in collective bargaining in the state in some detail, examining recent contract settlements and other data.
{"title":"California Labor Relations: Background and Developments through Mid-2002","authors":"D. Mitchell","doi":"10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.171","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the current state of union-management relations in California, based on records of public agencies and related data. A review of patterns of unionization in the state shows that two-thirds of the state's union-represented workers are in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas, although Sacramento has a higher unionization rate. As is the case nationally, California's public sector is highly unionized, with approximately half the workforce covered by union contracts. In the private sector, union-represented workers are found in a variety of occupations and industries. Some work in manufacturing, as the common stereotype would indicate, but large concentrations are also found in construction, grocery and food warehouses, and health care. Some of the most dramatic organizing successes in the state during recent years have involved low-wage immigrant workers, such as janitors and home health care workers. The chapter reviews recent developments in collective bargaining in the state in some detail, examining recent contract settlements and other data.","PeriodicalId":250738,"journal":{"name":"State of California Labor","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126488134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-11-01DOI: 10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.37
M. Pastor, C. Zabin
This chapter reviews the effects of the current recession on California's working people. Just before the downturn that began in early 2001, the buoyant economy, together with a bolder labor movement and progressive public policy initiatives, had begun to challenge the longer-term drift toward economic inequality that had marked the preceding decades, and even workers at the bottom of the state's income distribution made modest gains at the very end of the 1990s. That progress came to an abrupt halt with the recession, which was triggered mainly by the dot.com crash and a broader slowdown in the high-tech sector. Although the situation worsened significantly with the events of September 11, 2001, the recession was well under way in California several months earlier. Nonetheless the post-9/11 period led to extensive job losses in sectors like travel and tourism, where union density is high. More broadly, the chapter highlights the ways in which this recession has exposed the downside of the new economy. For example, labor market flexibility helped businesses respond quickly to competitive challenges during the boom, but the temporary workers who made that flexibility possible now face not only layoffs but also limited access to public and private safety nets. This analysis suggests the continuing importance of public policies that address the issues of economic inequality and employment insecurity.
{"title":"Recession and Reaction: The Impact of the Economic Downturn on California Labor","authors":"M. Pastor, C. Zabin","doi":"10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.37","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reviews the effects of the current recession on California's working people. Just before the downturn that began in early 2001, the buoyant economy, together with a bolder labor movement and progressive public policy initiatives, had begun to challenge the longer-term drift toward economic inequality that had marked the preceding decades, and even workers at the bottom of the state's income distribution made modest gains at the very end of the 1990s. That progress came to an abrupt halt with the recession, which was triggered mainly by the dot.com crash and a broader slowdown in the high-tech sector. Although the situation worsened significantly with the events of September 11, 2001, the recession was well under way in California several months earlier. Nonetheless the post-9/11 period led to extensive job losses in sectors like travel and tourism, where union density is high. More broadly, the chapter highlights the ways in which this recession has exposed the downside of the new economy. For example, labor market flexibility helped businesses respond quickly to competitive challenges during the boom, but the temporary workers who made that flexibility possible now face not only layoffs but also limited access to public and private safety nets. This analysis suggests the continuing importance of public policies that address the issues of economic inequality and employment insecurity.","PeriodicalId":250738,"journal":{"name":"State of California Labor","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132380553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-11-01DOI: 10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.135
Limor Bar-Cohen, Deana Milam Carrillo
This chapter examines the record of two state agencies within the California Department of Industrial Relations, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Program (Cal/OSHA), over the 1970-2000 period. Although the data available on the performance of these agencies are severely limited - in most cases consisting only of enforcement activity measures, without any valid measures of enforcement outcomes, it is possible to draw some conclusions. The analysis shows that the agencies' budget and staffing allocations have generally not kept pace with the growth in the size of the state's workforce, nor with the agencies' increased responsibilities. Despite recent improvements, the agencies are still funded and staffed at 1989 levels. Moreover, several key activity measures, such as the number of investigations, citations, and penalties assessed, have failed to increase in proportion to the expansion of funding and staffing that has occurred. The chapter highlights the urgent need for these agencies to collect data on outcomes, so that any future progress in their work can be measured and evaluated in a rigorous manner.
{"title":"Labor Law Enforcement in California, 1970-2000","authors":"Limor Bar-Cohen, Deana Milam Carrillo","doi":"10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.135","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the record of two state agencies within the California Department of Industrial Relations, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Program (Cal/OSHA), over the 1970-2000 period. Although the data available on the performance of these agencies are severely limited - in most cases consisting only of enforcement activity measures, without any valid measures of enforcement outcomes, it is possible to draw some conclusions. The analysis shows that the agencies' budget and staffing allocations have generally not kept pace with the growth in the size of the state's workforce, nor with the agencies' increased responsibilities. Despite recent improvements, the agencies are still funded and staffed at 1989 levels. Moreover, several key activity measures, such as the number of investigations, citations, and penalties assessed, have failed to increase in proportion to the expansion of funding and staffing that has occurred. The chapter highlights the urgent need for these agencies to collect data on outcomes, so that any future progress in their work can be measured and evaluated in a rigorous manner.","PeriodicalId":250738,"journal":{"name":"State of California Labor","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133649836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-11-01DOI: 10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.67
Neil Fligstein, Ofer Sharone
Utilizing new data from the ILE's 2001-02 California Workforce Survey, this chapter compares the situation of the state's managers and professionals, on the one hand, to that of its clerical, service and blue-collar workers, on the other. Even more than in the past, the contrast between the two groups is striking. The managerial-professional group - which is disproportionately white and male - is doing well, both in regard to incomes and fringe benefits as well as in regard to the quality of work experience. Most managerial and professional respondents find their work enjoyable, but many report working long hours and being tied to their jobs after hours by new telecommunications technologies. By contrast, clerical, service, and blue-collar workers - a disproportionately female, nonwhite and foreign-born group - earn less, have fewer fringe benefits, and work shorter hours - in many cases fewer hours than they would like. They are also much more fearful of layoffs. However, unionized workers in the clerical, service and blue-collar group enjoy more job security as well as better pay and fringe benefits than do their nonunion counterparts.
{"title":"Work in the Postindustrial Economy of California","authors":"Neil Fligstein, Ofer Sharone","doi":"10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.67","url":null,"abstract":"Utilizing new data from the ILE's 2001-02 California Workforce Survey, this chapter compares the situation of the state's managers and professionals, on the one hand, to that of its clerical, service and blue-collar workers, on the other. Even more than in the past, the contrast between the two groups is striking. The managerial-professional group - which is disproportionately white and male - is doing well, both in regard to incomes and fringe benefits as well as in regard to the quality of work experience. Most managerial and professional respondents find their work enjoyable, but many report working long hours and being tied to their jobs after hours by new telecommunications technologies. By contrast, clerical, service, and blue-collar workers - a disproportionately female, nonwhite and foreign-born group - earn less, have fewer fringe benefits, and work shorter hours - in many cases fewer hours than they would like. They are also much more fearful of layoffs. However, unionized workers in the clerical, service and blue-collar group enjoy more job security as well as better pay and fringe benefits than do their nonunion counterparts.","PeriodicalId":250738,"journal":{"name":"State of California Labor","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131000289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-11-01DOI: 10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.3
R. Milkman, Rachel E. Dwyer
Author(s): Milkman, Ruth; Dwyer, Rachel E. | Abstract: This chapter explores the characteristics of job growth in California during the long economic expansion of the 1990s. The main focus is on the quality of jobs (measured by median hourly earnings) generated during the boom years. Drawing on U.S. Current Population Survey data, the analysis shows that net employment growth in California was polarized between "good jobs" and "bad jobs," with relatively little growth in the middle. The state's pattern of job growth was more polarized than that in the U.S. as a whole, although in both the state and the nation, the 1990s pattern contrasts sharply with that of the 1960s, when economic expansion generated a more evenly distributed array of new jobs. In the 1990s, race, ethnicity and nativity were tightly linked to the new polarization, although in the case of gender, the analysis reveals extensive within-group polarization. One of the most striking findings in this chapter involves regional differences: whereas the Los Angeles metropolitan area showed an even more extreme pattern of job polarization than the state as a whole, in the San Francisco Bay Area (which includes Silicon Valley) "good jobs" dominated growth, with little expansion of jobs at the low end or in the middle. This suggests that the much-touted "new economy" of the 1990s is a geographically bounded phenomenon, and one that may depend on a more polarized and less salutary set of economic arrangements in nearby regions.
{"title":"Growing Apart: The \"New Economy\" and Job Polarization in California, 1992-2000","authors":"R. Milkman, Rachel E. Dwyer","doi":"10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.3","url":null,"abstract":"Author(s): Milkman, Ruth; Dwyer, Rachel E. | Abstract: This chapter explores the characteristics of job growth in California during the long economic expansion of the 1990s. The main focus is on the quality of jobs (measured by median hourly earnings) generated during the boom years. Drawing on U.S. Current Population Survey data, the analysis shows that net employment growth in California was polarized between \"good jobs\" and \"bad jobs,\" with relatively little growth in the middle. The state's pattern of job growth was more polarized than that in the U.S. as a whole, although in both the state and the nation, the 1990s pattern contrasts sharply with that of the 1960s, when economic expansion generated a more evenly distributed array of new jobs. In the 1990s, race, ethnicity and nativity were tightly linked to the new polarization, although in the case of gender, the analysis reveals extensive within-group polarization. One of the most striking findings in this chapter involves regional differences: whereas the Los Angeles metropolitan area showed an even more extreme pattern of job polarization than the state as a whole, in the San Francisco Bay Area (which includes Silicon Valley) \"good jobs\" dominated growth, with little expansion of jobs at the low end or in the middle. This suggests that the much-touted \"new economy\" of the 1990s is a geographically bounded phenomenon, and one that may depend on a more polarized and less salutary set of economic arrangements in nearby regions.","PeriodicalId":250738,"journal":{"name":"State of California Labor","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116795136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-11-01DOI: 10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.97
M. Weir
This chapter explores the implications of growing economic and social inequality in California for the state's social contract, as well as the role of government and other institutions in addressing the new polarization. Data from the ILE's 2001-02 California Workforce Survey reveal that a majority of Californians are seriously concerned about the widening economic divide and support public policy measures that would help to narrow it. Respondents with lower incomes and less education are especially supportive of a strong government role in this area, as are noncitizens, Latinos, and African Americans. Because of the concentration of low-wage workers, immigrants, and Latinos in the southern part of the state, attitudes there belie the conservative stereotype of Southern California, traditionally juxtaposed to the relatively liberal attitudes assumed to be typical of the Bay Area. The survey results suggest that today, southern Californians are in fact more supportive of a strong government role than are people in the rest of the state. Southern Californians are also more pro-union than their counterparts elsewhere in the state. Another important topic in the chapter is public policy in regard to the problem of combining work and family responsibilities, with a large majority of survey respondents reporting that they favor compensating workers for family leave, and making child care and elder care more affordable.
{"title":"Income Polarization and California's Social Contract","authors":"M. Weir","doi":"10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.97","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.97","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the implications of growing economic and social inequality in California for the state's social contract, as well as the role of government and other institutions in addressing the new polarization. Data from the ILE's 2001-02 California Workforce Survey reveal that a majority of Californians are seriously concerned about the widening economic divide and support public policy measures that would help to narrow it. Respondents with lower incomes and less education are especially supportive of a strong government role in this area, as are noncitizens, Latinos, and African Americans. Because of the concentration of low-wage workers, immigrants, and Latinos in the southern part of the state, attitudes there belie the conservative stereotype of Southern California, traditionally juxtaposed to the relatively liberal attitudes assumed to be typical of the Bay Area. The survey results suggest that today, southern Californians are in fact more supportive of a strong government role than are people in the rest of the state. Southern Californians are also more pro-union than their counterparts elsewhere in the state. Another important topic in the chapter is public policy in regard to the problem of combining work and family responsibilities, with a large majority of survey respondents reporting that they favor compensating workers for family leave, and making child care and elder care more affordable.","PeriodicalId":250738,"journal":{"name":"State of California Labor","volume":"2002 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130118828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-11-01DOI: 10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.63
T. Piazza, Neil Fligstein, M. Weir
Labor-FO2.qxd 11:35 AM Page 63 The 2001–2002 California Workforce Survey Background, Methods, and Sample THOMAS PIAZZA, NEIL FLIGSTEIN, and M A R G A R E T W E I R T ‒ (), by the Institute for Labor and Employment of the University of California, assesses the current state of the California workforce. It is the basis of the analyses in the next two chapters in this volume, by Fligstein and Sharone and by Weir. The survey, con- ducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley, col- lected data by telephone on Californians’ attitudes toward a wide range of issues, as well as data on the status, conditions, and practices of employment in the state. The interviews took place from July 10, 2001, to January 27, 2002. 1 SAM PLI NG M ETHOD S There are two telephone samples in the CWS. The first and larger sample is a cross- sectional sample of California adults eligible for the interviews, according to the cri- teria set for the survey: respondents had to be adults (ages 18 or over), living in a res- idential household, and able to be interviewed in English or Spanish. For the cross-sectional sample the survey team succeeded in conducting completed inter- views with 1,255 adults, 140 of which were in Spanish. The response rate was 50.8 per- cent. The second sample was a supplementary oversample of unionized workers. The purpose of the oversampling was to increase the number of unionized workers in the sample to facilitate comparative analyses of unionized and nonunionized workers. In the union-member oversample, households were selected as in the cross-sectional sample, but only adult union members working full- or part-time at the time of the interview were eligible for an interview. The supplementary sampling yielded inter- views with an additional 149 unionized workers, 6 of them in Spanish; the response rate for this sample was 70.2 percent. 2 1. Note that the interviewers asked those not working at the time of the interview most of the at- titudinal questions in the survey, but of course, for those respondents, they had to skip any ques- tions about current jobs. The text of the questions asked on the survey instrument is available online at http://sda.berkeley.edu:7502/D3/Calabor/Doc/cal.htm (under “Indexes”). 2. For further details on the sampling outcome, see ibid., “Appendix C: Field Outcome.” For the the 2001–2002 california workforce survey
Labor-FO2。THOMAS PIAZZA, NEIL FLIGSTEIN，和MA R G A R E T W EI R T-()，由加州大学劳动与就业研究所评估了加州劳动力的现状。这是本卷接下来两章分析的基础，这两章分别是弗莱格斯坦、沙隆和韦尔。这项由加州大学伯克利分校调查研究中心进行的调查，通过电话收集了加州人对一系列广泛问题的态度，以及该州就业状况、条件和实践的数据。采访于2001年7月10日至2002年1月27日进行。1 SAM PLI M方法CWS中有两个电话样本。第一个更大的样本是加州成年人的横截面样本，符合调查的标准:受访者必须是成年人(18岁或以上)，住在一个相同的家庭，能够用英语或西班牙语接受采访。对于横断面样本，调查小组成功地对1,255名成年人进行了完整的访谈，其中140人使用西班牙语。回复率为50.8%。第二个样本是对工会工人的补充样本。过采样的目的是增加样本中加入工会的工人的数量，以便于对加入工会和未加入工会的工人进行比较分析。在工会成员样本中，家庭与横截面样本一样被选择，但只有在采访时全职或兼职工作的成年工会成员才有资格接受采访。补充抽样还对149名工会工人进行了访谈，其中6人用西班牙语;该样本的回复率为70.2%。2 1。请注意，面试官问了那些在面试时没有工作的人调查中的大部分纵向问题，但当然，对于这些受访者，他们必须跳过任何关于目前工作的问题。调查工具上的问题文本可在http://sda.berkeley.edu:7502/D3/Calabor/Doc/cal.htm(在“索引”下)在线获取。2. 有关抽样结果的进一步详细信息，请参见同上，“附录C:实地结果”。2001-2002年加州劳动力调查
{"title":"The 2001-2002 California Workforce Survey: Background, Methods, and Sample","authors":"T. Piazza, Neil Fligstein, M. Weir","doi":"10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/SCL.2002.2002.1.63","url":null,"abstract":"Labor-FO2.qxd 11:35 AM Page 63 The 2001–2002 California Workforce Survey Background, Methods, and Sample THOMAS PIAZZA, NEIL FLIGSTEIN, and M A R G A R E T W E I R T ‒ (), by the Institute for Labor and Employment of the University of California, assesses the current state of the California workforce. It is the basis of the analyses in the next two chapters in this volume, by Fligstein and Sharone and by Weir. The survey, con- ducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley, col- lected data by telephone on Californians’ attitudes toward a wide range of issues, as well as data on the status, conditions, and practices of employment in the state. The interviews took place from July 10, 2001, to January 27, 2002. 1 SAM PLI NG M ETHOD S There are two telephone samples in the CWS. The first and larger sample is a cross- sectional sample of California adults eligible for the interviews, according to the cri- teria set for the survey: respondents had to be adults (ages 18 or over), living in a res- idential household, and able to be interviewed in English or Spanish. For the cross-sectional sample the survey team succeeded in conducting completed inter- views with 1,255 adults, 140 of which were in Spanish. The response rate was 50.8 per- cent. The second sample was a supplementary oversample of unionized workers. The purpose of the oversampling was to increase the number of unionized workers in the sample to facilitate comparative analyses of unionized and nonunionized workers. In the union-member oversample, households were selected as in the cross-sectional sample, but only adult union members working full- or part-time at the time of the interview were eligible for an interview. The supplementary sampling yielded inter- views with an additional 149 unionized workers, 6 of them in Spanish; the response rate for this sample was 70.2 percent. 2 1. Note that the interviewers asked those not working at the time of the interview most of the at- titudinal questions in the survey, but of course, for those respondents, they had to skip any ques- tions about current jobs. The text of the questions asked on the survey instrument is available online at http://sda.berkeley.edu:7502/D3/Calabor/Doc/cal.htm (under “Indexes”). 2. For further details on the sampling outcome, see ibid., “Appendix C: Field Outcome.” For the the 2001–2002 california workforce survey","PeriodicalId":250738,"journal":{"name":"State of California Labor","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125321919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：