Workforce Developments

GAO investigation finds DOL's Wage and Hour Division asleep at the wheel

DOL's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is charged with enforcing labor laws related to wages, overtime, youth employment, family leave and more. A new U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found them to be almost non-responsive to complaints.

Read the full report here, a one-page version here, or a summary here. You can read Labor Secretary Hilda Solis's response here.

To test the the division, the GAO went undercover, pretending to be workers who've been cheated out of wages or witnesses to violations of wage and hour laws. They filed ten fictitious complaints to see how the system worked. To quote from the report:

The undercover tests revealed sluggish response times, a poor complaint intake process, and failed conciliation attempts, among other problems. In one case, a WHD investigator lied about investigative work performed and did not investigate GAO’s fictitious complaint.

GAO reviewed WHD a database and found 20 real cases from 2007 affecting 1,160 workers where complaints were inadequately investigated.

This report follows testimony in June 2008, when the GAO reported on 15 cases where WHD did not adequately investigate complaints or require employers to pay.

A result of underfunding, mismanagement or policy directives? Solis's statement reports that 150 new field investigators are being hired, and an additional 100 to monitor contractors using ARRA funds. Perhaps this signals a change in priority at DOL.

How do your employee benefits stack up?

Like many other countries in Asia, Vietnam has experienced dramatic economic growth in recent years. Its population is becoming better educated, and its workforce is beginning to demand more benefits on the job.

British Employee Benefits magazine reports on a recent survey that found employers in Vietnam are providing increasing benefits to their workers. 91% of employers provide some kind of health-related benefits, including medical insurance, cost reimbursement, company health facilities and hospital memberships. Also common are mobile phone expenses, commuting expenses (including helmets and parking), and education and training assistance. Private retirement plans and assistance with children's education have seen tremendous growth in recent years.

The survey was conducted by Watson Wyatt and Smart HR. It also found that 80% of companies had raised salaries 19% between August 2007 and March 2008.

Vietnam's workforce is about 46 million people, more than half of whom work in agriculture. The unemployment rate is 5.3% and 14.8% of people live below the poverty line (those figures are 5.7% and 13.3% in the U.S.).

As economies grow and people become better educated, it seems they come to expect more from their employers. The story concludes

As an emerging market, it is expected that Vietnam will experience changes to benefits strategies to meet the needs of an increasingly sophisticated and discerning workforce, and to complement and support developing talent management and succession planning.

Vietnam photo by Brian Jeffery Beggerly

Short haul truckers in the news

A study I worked on for a client of mine, Port Jobs, was quoted in a Seattle Times article last week about short haul truckers in the Puget Sound region. Here's an excerpt:

But this is a particularly challenging time to be a driver. A 2006 study by Port Jobs, a Seattle nonprofit, found the average short-haul trucker at the Port of Seattle drove an 11-year-old rig, worked 11 hours a day and earned $31,000 a year. But that was two years ago — before cargo volumes dipped almost 10 percent and diesel prices nearly doubled to almost $5 a gallon. Most drivers do not have health insurance, retirement plans or paid vacation.

Can you afford to work for a nonprofit?

The new edition of the Chronicle of Philanthropy (reg required) has a series of articles about a new study that finds nonprofits will have trouble filling leadership positions as the baby boomers who run them today retire. Workforce Developments readers (and just about anyone else paying attention) know this is a burgeoning labor problem, not just in the U.S., but wordwide.

One major concern unique to nonprofit organizations is chronically low salaries. Sure, those of us who've worked in nonprofits do it by choice, knowing that the rewards lie elsewhere. Like maybe it will put us in front of the line to get to heaven. But this new survey of 6,000 nonprofit employees, produced jointly by the Casey Foundation, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, Idealist.org, and the Meyer Foundation, finds that what makes younger workers think twice about running nonprofits are a mix of problems in the industry, including

1. Poor work-life balance;
2. Insufficient lifelong earning potential;
3. Lack of mentorship; and
4. Overwhelming fundraising responsibilities.

No kidding. Don't we all know somebody running a nonprofit whose life looks like that?

My question is this: What role do the foundations, government agencies and donors who fund the work of nonprofits have in keeping salaries so unreasonably low that more people are less interested in running them? I know it's important to make efficient use of public resources, but is it good policy to pay nonprofit employees so little that they can't afford to buy a home?

I did a little research. I collected management level job descriptions in California from Idealist.org (great job search website). Then I compared monthly salaries with what it would cost to buy a median-priced home there with a 30-year fixed mortgage at 7 percent with a 20% downpayment.

The most important thing I found is that the vast majority of these jobs don't list salaries, instead assuring potential applicants that "pay is commensurate with experience." Are they so ashamed of what they pay that they don't want to advertise it? Of those who do list pay, here's a sampling of what I found:

These are before-tax salaries. Take-home pay will be less. It's clear, even if some of these people bought a home with another person making the same salary, they still couldn't make the payments and eat. We won't even talk about their share of health care premiums. 

When a foundation or government agency reviews a proposal, do they look at the proposed salaries? Do they compare them to the local cost of living? Maybe they should do that before clutching their chests over paying an Executive Director more than $100,000 a year. I believe funders should get out of the business of supporting nonprofits that undercut their own employees in order to compete for grants and contracts. If they want a nonprofit to do the work, they should pay what it costs to hire and keep talented staff. That's one way they can help nonprofits build sustainable leadership for the long haul.

Health care wages to rise 27% in the next ten years

It's time to update your labor market data, and it might be time to reassess your job search strategies. It also might be time to reconsider when you plan to retire.

The Bureau of Labor Stats has issued new employment projections for the 2006-2016 time period. BLS estimates total employment will grow by 15.6 million jobs, or 10 percent. That's slightly less than the 15.9 million jobs created in the 1996-2006 decade.

No real surprises in the data, but in some cases it's stunning to see the hard numbers. For example, the number of 55 and older workers is expected to rise by 46.7%, more than five times the growth in the labor force overall. By 2016 they'll make up nearly a quarter of the nation's labor force, almost double their share in 1996. Getting onto AARP's "best employers" list is going to become much more important for businesses looking to hire.

Opportunities in service occupations in industries like health care, retail and food services will rise, although how many will be new jobs and how many will be replacements for people leaving those jobs varies significantly. See the attached chart.

BLS expects wages in Health care and social assistance, Business and professional services and in Educational services to each rise more than 20% over the next decade. In Manufacturing, wages will decline by 11%.

For the press release and all the info from BLS, click here.

From Advocacy to Implementation Over the past few years, I've had a few opportunities to learn a little bit about Wider Opportunity for Women's Family Economic Self-Sufficiency (FESS) project. And, quite frankly, I think they have developed a really interesting alternative to using the Federal Poverty Line or some percentage thereof as a measure of worker economic well-being or lack thereof. Simply put, the FESS standard is nuanced - it uses data (from well respected state and federal government sources) on several common family expenses (e.g., housing, food, childcare, transportation, health care, and taxes) and then tailors its calculations, according on family size and location, in order to determine what it takes for a family to make ends meet. Today, at the NNSP conference session on "Self-Sufficiency Tools for the Direct Service Needs of Sector Implementation," I had the further good fortune to see representatives from the Workforce Development Council of Seattle King County and the Colorado Center on Law and Policy demonstrate how their states use on-line self-sufficiency calculators to work with clients as part of the case management and career counseling. The most interesting thing about both State's on-line tools is that they let the user save several different financial scenarios for each client, so the client can see side-by-side projections on household income and expenses under changing conditions. For example, a client could compare their current situation to their potential financial situation if they chose to cut back their hours at work and go back to school. The calculator might then also point out where the individual may be eligible for work supports that can help reduce expenses under this changing scenario. Or, the calculator could demonstrate the difference that accessing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could potentially make in their household budget. For more information, check out: The Self Sufficiency Calculator for Washington State The Colorado Self-Sufficiency Calculator Posted by Allison Gerber on November 14, 2007 in Allison Gerber, Financial Management, NNSP conference 2007, Policy, Sector, Training and Education, Wages | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Over the past few years, I've had a few opportunities to learn a little bit about Wider Opportunity for Women's Family Economic Self-Sufficiency (FESS) project. And, quite frankly, I think they have developed a really interesting alternative to using the Federal Poverty Line or some percentage thereof as a measure of worker economic well-being or lack thereof. Simply put, the FESS standard is nuanced -  it uses data (from well respected state and federal government sources) on several common family expenses (e.g., housing, food, childcare, transportation, health care, and taxes) and then tailors its calculations, according on family size and location, in order to determine what it takes for a family to make ends meet.

Today, at the NNSP conference session on "Self-Sufficiency Tools for the Direct Service Needs of Sector Implementation," I had the further good fortune to see representatives from the Workforce Development Council of Seattle King County and the Colorado Center on Law and Policy demonstrate how their states use on-line self-sufficiency calculators to work with clients as part of the case management and career counseling. The most interesting thing about both State's on-line tools is that they let the user save several different financial scenarios for each client, so the client can see side-by-side projections on household income and expenses under changing conditions. For example, a client could compare their current situation to their potential financial situation if they chose to cut back their hours at work and go back to school. The calculator might then also point out where the individual may be eligible for work supports that can help reduce expenses under this changing scenario. Or, the calculator could demonstrate the difference that accessing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could potentially make in their household budget.

For more information, check out:

• The Self Sufficiency Calculator for Washington State
• The Colorado Self-Sufficiency Calculator

Federal minimum wage rises to $5.85

On Tuesday the federal minimum wage - to not-so-much fanfare - rose by seventy cents per hour. I suppose those of us in the mainland U.S. should be grateful. Today in Saipan (aka the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) the minimum wage went up to $3.55 per hour. The rules for  American Samoa are too complicated to describe here.

Does everyone who qualifies for the minimum wage actually get it? The National Employment Law Project reports major problems with enforcement, especially among immigrant workers and those working in health care, child care, retail, building services, construction and hospitality. As the number of workers covered by the minimum wage has grown 55% over the past 30 years, the number of federal inspectors in DOL's Wage and Hour Division has actually fallen 14%.

Perhaps the lack of fanfare has something to do with the fact that most states gave up waiting and raised their minimum wage levels long ago. Today, only eleven states either match the federal level or have no minimum wage law at all. Maybe it's just bad reporting, or perhaps a reflection of the issues NELP is raising, but here's how Tuesday's LA Times story about the minimum wage rise and enforcement problems ended:

No Labor Department officials were available for comment.

I'm voting for the hypocrite

Warning: political rant ahead. I generally keep clear of politics on this blog. It's not that I don't have strong political opinions - I most certainly do. But that's not the purpose of this blog, so you won't see a lot of it from me.

That said, I've got to tell you how tired I am of hearing presidential candidate John Edwards being called a hypocrite for talking about poverty and the poor. Yeah, the guy's rich. Problem is, so is every other serious candidate and most of the also-rans. We've gamed the electoral system until the odds of any "ordinary person" who earns anything like the median family income of $46,242 per year being elected president are nil. The courts have decided campaign donations = speech, so we can't limit cash donations to candidates the way we need to. Problem is that in the real world of campaigns and advertising cash controls speech, so the person who sells out the most to get the most cash, tends to win.

Of all the '08 presidential candidates, do you think any of them has ever gone to a One-Stop Career Center looking for a job? Have any of them - or any member of their families - ever had to figure out how to get enough training to qualify for a decent paying job under TANF work requirements? Have they ever had to beg for time off from a minimum-wage job in order to take care of a sick child, then get from work to the school and home via public transit?

Maybe Edwards shouldn't get $400 haircuts and take $55,000 fees for speeches. Maybe. But he's no more hypocritical than Rudy Giuliani was when he turned his back on NYC firefighters. Or Mitt Romney when he supported gay rights (or is he being a hypocrite when he attacks gay rights?) What's different about Edwards is that he's actually talking about the poor and about doing something meaningful about poverty in America. If any of the current batch of presidential candidates starts talking seriously about programs to improve education and skills for disadvantaged communities, about addressing the growing gap between rich and poor, then that candidate will be just as hypocritical as Edwards.

In which case I wish more of them would take on the mantle of hypocrite. I'd rather read policies and plans from these rich candidates for how they're going to help the poor and working class when they're president, rather than their plans to help their rich friends. Come the election, I'm voting for the hypocrite whose policies to address economic and social inequality I like best.

New Article Looks at Effect of Gender in Workforce Development In an upcoming article in the New England Journal of Public Policy, "New Directions in Workforce Development: Do They Lead to Gains for Women," authors Susan Crandall with the Crittendon Women's Union and Surabhi Jain with the National Council of La Raza look at demand-driven workforce approaches from a gender perspective. Interestingly, their research found that demand-driven approaches often place women at a disadvantage, as they focus on industries and occupations that are traditionally male-dominated. Simply put, women are less likely to enter these industries and/or occupations and more likely to enter jobs that pay less. The author's proffer several recommendations for achieving parity of outcomes for women, including: a focus on preparing women solely for jobs that lead to family economic self-sufficiency, promoting systemic change that help women gain access to male-dominated industries or occupations, building career ladders that facilitate women's promotion within these same industries, and increasing investment in math and science. To read the full text of the article, click here. Posted by Allison Gerber on May 30, 2007 in Allison Gerber, Policy, Wages, Women | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

In an upcoming article in the New England Journal of Public Policy, "New Directions in Workforce Development: Do They Lead to Gains for Women," authors Susan Crandall with the Crittendon Women's Union and Surabhi Jain with the National Council of La Raza look at demand-driven workforce approaches from a gender perspective. Interestingly, their research found that demand-driven approaches often place women at a disadvantage, as they focus on industries and occupations that are traditionally male-dominated. Simply put, women are less likely to enter these industries and/or occupations and more likely to enter jobs that pay less. The author's proffer several recommendations for achieving parity of outcomes for women, including: a focus on preparing women solely for jobs that lead to family economic self-sufficiency, promoting systemic change that help women gain access to male-dominated industries or occupations, building career ladders that facilitate women's promotion within these same industries, and increasing investment in math and science. To read the full text of the article, click here.

Give Rockefeller your workforce ideas

Earlier this month the Rockefeller Foundation released results of a survey of American workers, reporting what a lot of us already know: We feel economically insecure, and expect things to get worse. And we have good reason to feel that way. (Click here for a one-page summary, and here for the full results.) They also found that workers would choose a job with health and pension benefits over a job with higher pay.

Rockefeller isn't known as a leader in funding workforce programs, but this may be changing. I did a quick search for "workforce" in their grants database, and found only $3.6 million in grants since 2004, with most of the money going to groups like MDRC, The Workforce Alliance, and CLASP. However, their site has an intriguing description of an American Workers Initiative, currently in development. Here's an excerpt:

Through its American Workers Initiative, The Rockefeller Foundation would support the development and promotion of new instruments and novel solutions that -- if implemented on a large scale -- would guarantee a basic level of economic security to all American workers.

Here's where you come in. Rockefeller has created a place on their website where you can submit your ideas directly to the foundation. You'll find the form right here. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports the foundation has taken several of the ideas submitted so far under serious consideration.

I expect Workforce Developments readers and colleagues have plenty of great ideas for workforce development projects, grants and initiatives that can support basic economic security for American workers. So get over to the Rockefeller site and start sharing them.

Just how much is that degree worth?

We talk about it all the time in workforce development, and MDRC has quantified it this terrific chart, using 2006 Census data. Getting that high school diploma gets you $10 grand a year more than dropping out, a two year degree gets you $8,000 more, and that college degree another $16K (nearly double what you'll earn with a H.S. diploma). Click here to see more MDRC Fast Facts.

This is the answer to the question we get from participants, "Why should I keep going to school?" It's also the answer to the political question, "Why should we reduce work requirements and extend TANF [and other benefits] to allow program participants to stay in school longer?"

My job's worth more than yours

An article in Friday's L.A. Times on job losses from the implosion of the subprime mortgage industry included this quote from UCLA economist Ryan Ratcliff: "Each of these finance jobs is worth at least two construction jobs."

That's like nails on a blackboard to most of us in workforce development. After all, construction jobs have provided a pathway out of poverty and into the middle class to many people with limited education. And the construction workers I know think their jobs are worth quite a lot. So I emailed Ryan to ask him exactly what he meant.

He explained that when comparing 2004 data on gross state product per worker (productivity), construction generated about $90 of output per worker while the finance/insurance industry generated about $193 per worker. Personal income was $77,000 per construction worker, compared to $112,000 per finance/insurance worker. He concluded by saying, "Even though we're forecasting that construction will lose a lot more jobs than finance, each of the finance jobs we lose has twice the impact on state output."

I won't argue with him. After all, he's an economist. But this does get at an important issue we face: the inherent tension between economic development and workforce development. We've been trying in recent years to figure out how to work together better. Problem is, economic developers want to bring in the industries that will pay the highest wages, generate the best impact on the local economy, as shown by Dr. Ratcliff's stats. Those of us in workforce development want to create jobs that are within reach for people who don't have a lot of training and education, and will provide good wages, benefits and advancement opportunities. Few of the people we serve will ever qualify for jobs in finance, but there are lots of great workforce development programs out there to help people learn construction (check here and here, just for starters).

Everybody wants to know the worth of different jobs. I get loads of hits every day on this blog from people googling phrases like "what are the best jobs in America?" I suppose how we answer that question depends on where we sit.

Paid sick leave is on the march

Got an email from Mary Rickard at ACORN last week, alerting me to their new campaign for paid sick leave for American workers. A 2004 study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (click here for a summary) found that fully half of all workers don't get paid sick leave. Last week the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing to discuss Sen. Ted Kennedy's Healthy Families Act, intended to address this problem. He introduced it last year (S.932), and plans to again this year.

Legislative action for paid sick leave is on the march. Earlier this month San Francisco passed a mandatory paid sick leave ordinance, and at least seven states are considering similar bills. (Click here for a summary of all state family leave legislation in 2006.) Kennedy's bill would require employers with 15 or more employees to provide them seven paid sick days per year to take care of themselves or a sick family member. 

I wrote in an earlier post about the business costs of "presenteeism," where people show up for work even though they're too sick or distracted by problems at home to be productive. They show up because they can't afford unpaid time off, or fear losing a job. Everyone needs and deserves to be able to take time off without those kinds of risks.

I've heard people complain that if workers are given paid sick leave then they'll use it for non-illness-related days off. Why should employers police the reasons their workers take days off? Those "mental health days" we all take are just as important as "real" sick days for keeping us healthy. I say offer the days off, build it into the budget, and let workers take them as they choose.

Saipan's minimum wage

Participants at Saipan's first workforce development conference voted overwhelmingly in support of increasing the local minimum wage from the current $3.05 per hour. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) as the region is known, is a U.S. territory administered by the Office of Insular Affairs in the Dept. of the Interior, and has a dual minimum wage system. Wages below the U.S. minimum wage of $5.15 an hour are paid  primarily to non-resident alien workers, which make up most of the private sector workforce. A large share of them work in the garment industry. In 1995 the CNMI legislature voted to increase the minimum wage to $4.25 an hour, but this was delayed and eventually cancelled. (For more info on the CNMI minimum wage, check out this detailed bill report from 1997.) 

Democratic leaders in the incoming Congress have vowed not only to increase the U.S. minimum wage, but to apply an increase to the CNMI as well. The CNMI business community and local government are opposed to such a move.

Advice for real workers?

I've got to complain about a column I read in today's LA Times. It purported to be an advice column for workers who are thinking about leaving their job. Unfortunately the Times website doesn't include the photo they ran with the article, but it looked a lot like the one I've pasted in here.

Author Dr. Jonathan Alpert recommended that workers give some serious thought to why they want to leave and what they're looking for in another job before jumping ship. Reasonable advice, right? Then I got to this part: 

"If you decide a change is in order, consider what makes you feel content, personally and professionally. Ask yourself: What is most essential? Do a comparative analysis of fortune and family: making $300,000 a year but working 14 hours a day; material items and lifestyle - a company car and bonus - but with no time to take vacation."  Etc.

$300,000 a year? Who was this written for anyway? Average annual income in the Los Angeles metro area is $41,420. Or how about let's look at working 14 hours a day. If you did that for 51 weeks of the year (I'll give you one week vacation, but no sick leave) for California minimum wage, which goes to $7.50 an hour on January 1, and if you got time and a half for everything over 40 hours a week, you'd still only earn $32,500 a year. At those kinds of earnings the job benefits you're stressing over are affordable health care and retirement, not a company car. After all, Californians for Family Economic Self Sufficiency estimates that a single parent in L.A. with two kids needs to earn nearly $47,000 a year to  make ends meet.

Clearly, this column wasn't written for the average L.A. worker, and certainly not for anyone like the woman in this picture.

Newspaper readership may be higher among those with higher incomes, but I just don't think people pulling down $300K a year are looking to glib columnists for career advice. This isn't the first time I've run across this in newspapers or on the internet - advice columns that at first glance appear to be for the average American worker, but when you get into the details turn out to be for some other tier of workers in jobs that pay a whole lot more than $41,000 a year. Somebody needs a reality check.

I for one would love to see a regular newspaper column about the rest of the workforce. It would offer advice on real life issues such as how to manage two full time jobs when there are only seven days in a week, how to talk to prospective employers about your criminal record, and what to do when your child's teacher schedules a parent conference during your inflexible 9-5 work schedule - and it wouldn't suggest "talk openly with your boss" to someone working at a fast food place.

Radio consolidation: the story gets worse

A new study from the Future of Music Coalition finds that in American cities where a few giant corporations have bought out large numbers of local radio stations, job losses have increased and wages have fallen for radio employees.  "Consolidation" of broadcast and print media has long been associated with fewer voices and opinions in the news, a stunning homogenization of music and formats, and squeezing out of local issues and points of view.  That deejay you hear on your local station every morning might only be a stream from New York or downtown Culver City.  This new study uses Bureau of Labor Stats data to show that consolidation is bad for workers too. 

This follows a recent study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research which found that job growth in the Communication and Media Sector over the past 15 years has been slower than in the U.S. economy overall, and that lower-paying industries in the sector are growing faster than higher-paying ones.

Previous efforts by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to pass rules that would allow even greater media consolidation have been slowed but not yet stopped by public demand. 

Self-sufficiency standard for working poor families

Today, again, Tim Lohrentz, Program Specialist at National Economic Development and Law Center (NEDLC), is the guest blogger.

One of the strategies that NEDLC utilizes to counter the low-wages in many entry-level and lower-skilled jobs is to advocate for use of the family economic self-sufficiency standard to be adopted by state or local workforce investment boards (WIBs). In a practical sense this would set the wage goal for performance outcomes for the WIBs at or close to the self-sufficiency level. In addition, it might limit the WIBs to partner only with employers who ensure that all or most of their job openings are at or close to the self-sufficiency level.

For readers not familiar with the family economic self-sufficiency standard initiative, I will provide a little background. It is national effort led by Wider Opportunities for Women and carried out in each state by local partners. For California we are the lead partner. The self-sufficiency standard is different for each family type, just like the federal poverty threshold. While the federal poverty threshold was originally meant to define the income level that was unequivocally inadequate, the self-sufficiency standard intends to state the income level that is unequivocally adequate for a given family in a given place. Unlike the federal poverty guidelines, which only vary for Hawaii and Alaska, the self-sufficiency standard varies for each county. Therefore, while in Los Angeles County the 2003 standard was $46,670 for a single parent with two young children – more than three times the federal poverty threshold – in Custer County, Oklahoma, where I was born, the standard for this same family is about half that - $24,000.

As I mentioned, we lead this effort in California through the Californians for Economic Self-Sufficiency coalition (CFESS). Readers in California may wish to join the CFESS listserv. Our CFESS efforts are greatly enhanced through the use of our online self-sufficiency calculator, which is also available in Spanish and Chinese. You will notice that a password is needed. Please don’t let that hinder you from checking out the calculator. We do that because we like to provide technical assistance to those groups who plan on using the calculator in order to maximize its potential.

The self-sufficiency standard takes into account varying levels of public assistance as well as other public policies that can reduce the cost of living for low-income families. For example, in counties with widespread and accessible public transportation, the monthly transportation cost in the standard is set lower. We still need to enhance the policy responsive nature of the standard related to housing, health-care, child-care, and food security policies.

While linking the standard to local policies may seem a bit academic, if implemented in a way that is binding, it could provide a major incentive for local policies that support working poor families. For example, if a county’s minimum wage – or the living wage level for those doing business with the county – was pegged to the county’s self-sufficiency standard, there would be a lot of push from the county and local employers to have the standard set as low as possible. How could a county lower its standard? By adopting policies, for example, which significantly increase access to affordable housing, child-care subsidies, and universal health care.

Maybe you should have majored in art

Sunday’s L.A. Times included a rundown of executive salaries among Southern California nonprofit arts organizations, courtesy of reporter Christopher Reynolds. They also have a bit of comparative data on what their lower-level worker bees make. Coming hard on the heels of the object lesson in how not to manage a $9 billion endowment provided by Barry Munitz and the J. Paul Getty Trust, it’s fascinating info. Among other things, they found that “If you lump together salaries for the top executives of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Los Angeles Opera, the L.A. Philharmonic and the Center Theatre Group from 2002 to 2004, the average increase was 28%, while inflation was rising 5%.”

It’s worth reading the whole article for the details – here are some highlights.  Top five executive earnings:

• L.A. Philharmonic Music Director Esa-Pekka Salonen at $1,260,639
• L.A. Philharmonic Chief Executive Deborah Borda at $799,970
• L.A. Opera General Director Placido Domingo at $598,465
• Getty Museum Director Michael Brand at $482,000 (plus use of a $15,000 per month home
• L.A. Museum of Contemporary Art Director and Chief Executive Jeremy Strick at $405,530

Bottom five executive earnings:

• Museum of Jurassic Technology (L.A.) director David Wilson at $0. He supports himself these days with what's left of his MacArthur Genius Award.
• Museum of Latin American Art (Long Beach) Director Juan Gregorio Luke at $70,000
• Laguna Playhouse Executive Director Richard Stein at $120,572
• Petersen Automotive Museum (they call this an “arts” institution?) Director Richard Messer at $122,400
• Pasadena Playhouse Artistic Director Sheldon Epps at $125,000

Perhaps more interesting from a workforce development perspective is what the front line workers make. Here’s a sampling:

• Gift shop sales clerk at the Getty: $12.35 per hour and up
• Security guard at the Huntington Library and Gardens: $10.72 per hour on average
• Dinosaur skeleton duster at the L.A. County Natural History Museum: $8.32 per hour and up (23% above the California minimum wage of $6.75 per hour)
• Security guard at the Norton Simon Museum (Pasadena): $8.25 per hour and up
• Maintenance worker at Disney Hall: $18 per hour if you’re up on a rig; $13 per hour on the ground

For all those moms and dads who warned that majoring in Music was a guaranteed ticket to penury, you were wrong. But you were right about majoring in Theater.