10 Big Companies With BIG Hiring Plans
From The Street: 10 big companies that have announced big plans to hire:
1. Boeing: The airplane maker plans to build a new facility in South Carolina and hire as many as 150 employees for the new site. There are more than 400 open positions on the company's Web site. If the Boeing NewGen Tanker is selected as the U.S. Air Force's next aerial refueling aircraft, the company could add as many as 7,500 jobs in Kansas.
2. JPMorgan Chase: CEO Jamie Dimon said in a statement the company plans to add almost 9,000 jobs in the U.S. The company's Web site lists more than 5,000 job openings.
3. Intel will aim to add more college graduates as part of the Invest in America Alliance. There are more than 700 open positions in the U.S. on Intel's career Web site.
4. Nationwide Financial Services said it plans to fill approximately 1,400 open positions across the country. This is an increase from last year at this time, when there were 600 open positions at the company.
5. Ford is shifting some work typically done by suppliers in Mexico to the U.S. The carmaker plans to spend $135 million to design and produce hybrid-electric vehicles. Ford plans to hire more than 50 engineers and add 170 more jobs transmission plants in Michigan.
6. IBM announaced plans to open a new technology service center in Columbia, Mo. The opening of this new service center would create as many as 800 technical jobs. Job hunters can also find almost 2,000 open positions posted on IBM's Web site in a wide range of categories, including technical, management, research and sales.
7. Google hired more than 800 people during the first quarter, bringing the company's headcount to 20,621, up from 19,835 in December. And the search giant doesn't plan to stop. Google has announced plans to bring on 2,000 more employees this year.
8. General Motors. Since last July, the company has restored or created more than 9,100 jobs in the U.S. and Canada. GM's career Web site has more than 100 jobs listed, but the company plans to create or retain 1,600 jobs by adding new plants in New York, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. These factories will build fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
9. GE recently announced plans to add 1,300 jobs in Michigan during the next five years. The company recently opened a new facility in Wayne County, Mich., and hired 220 people for the site. There are more than 2,000 job openings on the company's career site. As a member of the Invest in America Alliance, GE has also committed to doubling the number of recent graduates it hires this year.
10. Morgan Stanley plans to add at least 50 employees in Charlotte, N.C. Spokesman Along with the 50 open jobs in Charlotte, Morgan Stanley's Web site lists more than 1,000 open positions nationwide, as well as almost a 1,000 open jobs outside the U.S. Most of the positions are in accounting, operations and wealth management.
HT: Steve Bartin
26 Comments:
Jobs Report Disappoints Economists
June 4, 2010
Scott Brown says the problem right now is this: The economy just isn't adding anywhere near enough jobs to absorb the millions of people who are still out of work (15 million so far).
Mr. BROWN: Coming out of a severe recession, we'd really like to see much stronger gains on the order of 250 to 300,000 jobs per month.
LANGFITT: Even at that pace, Brown says it would take at least six years before the unemployment rate could return to the good old days of five percent.
Mr. BROWN: So, there's a huge mountain to climb.
Prof. GRAHAM: We have a world economy that is just very uncertain right now between, you know, financial difficulties in Europe. And in the United States it's murky and difficult to tell how much of the growth is coming from long term authentic growth versus short term stimuluses and tax credits for buying houses and automobiles.
Mr. DARIN HOLDERNESS (Executive, Woodgrain Millwork): Our company has seen modest growth, but we're not sure there's a whole lot of reality to that growth.
LANGFITT: Darin Holderness is an executive with Woodgrain Millwork. The company is based in Idaho and makes doors, windows and molding for houses. Sales are up about 11 percent this year - but hiring isn't.
Mr. HOLDERNESS: We've not yet hired full time company employees...Our first choice to cover the extra volume is to just use our staff, more hours...it came apparent with the higher levels of volume that we did need to hire some outside people.
LANGFITT: But they were temps, not permanent staff. And later this year, Holderness expects he'll have to lay off many of them as well.
My former employer, amazon.com, DOUBLED the number of people it employed in 2009, and continues to hire at breakneck speed. It's not all bad out there for companies that innovate - in fact, it's pretty good.
JP Morgan is a big employer in central Ohio and just announced additional jobs in the area. They made some great business decisions during the worst days of the banking crisis. Those decisions are now paying off.
You should not include IBM in this list.
Adding 800 jobs after laying off 10,000+ in 2009 and another 5,000 so far this year with more to come shows IBM is growing and the economy.
IBM now has around 100,000 US employees, down from 270,000 less than 10 years ago.
IBM is offshoring everything they can as fast as they can - to India, China, Slovakia, Slovenia, Argentina and Brazil, not only to low cost countries, but to extremely inexperienced and cheap resources. Hire cheap overseas labor, train them for 6 weeks, then dump expensive US, Canada and UK employees.
IBM is opening the Columbia location to serve customers that are threatening to cancel contracts due to poor quality and incompetence of cheap, inadequately skilled labor.
After ten years in Columbia, IBM will demand more incentives from the state and city, and will fire the employees and shutdown the location if they don't get them. If you don't believe that, ask the Republic of Ireland.
The private economy—that is, the wealth creation part, not the wealth redistribution part—gained only 41,000 jobs, down sharply from the encouraging 218,000 in April, and 158,000 in March ... the labor force contracted by 322,000. Millions of Americans, beyond the 15 million Americans officially counted as unemployed, have given up looking for work.
Worst of all, nearly half of all unemployed workers in America today (a record 46%) have been out of work for six months or more. Normally job growth accelerates during the early stages of an economic rebound, but this dismal report suggests that the recovery remains well short of becoming a typical expansion.
Imagine if Ms. Romer had instead promised in 2009 that Congress could spend nearly $1 trillion, and 16 months later the unemployment rate would be nearly 10% and that more than 2.5 million additional Americans would be without jobs ...
Almost everything Congress has done in recent months has made private businesses less inclined to hire new workers. ObamaCare imposes new taxes and mandates on private employers. Even with record unemployment, Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25, pricing more workers out of jobs. The teen unemployment rate rose to 26.4% in May, and for those between the ages of 25 and 34 it rose to 10.5%. These should be some of the first to be hired in an expansion because they are relatively cheap and have the potential for large productivity gains as they add skills.
The "jobs" bill that the House passed last week expands jobless insurance to 99 weeks, while raising taxes by $80 billion on small employers and U.S-based corporations. On January 1, Congress is set to let taxes rise on capital gains, dividends and small businesses. None of these are incentives to hire more Americans.
Employers on Strike, WSJ
Boeing's SC operations are going to cannabalize their WA operations. They're escaping high taxes and high costs.
Due diligence.
it's becoming abundantly clear that the neo-keynsians are wrong in their assumed multiplier effects from government spending.
the "multiplier" on government spending has been conspicuously below unity.
worse, because it has been funded through deficit spending, the bill in terms of austerity is yet to come.
this isn't aid, it's hindrance. schumpeter spoke of the "creative destruction" of capitalism and its necessary role in reshaping an economy. this is not creative destruction, it's sclerotic destruction - all the damage, none of the gains from re-allocating capital.
from Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Small Business:
"Since January, 2008, the average employment per firm was negative in every month, including May, with a seasonally adjusted loss of 0.5 workers per firm. Most firms did not change employment, 8% increased average employment by 2.4 employees, but 20% reduced their workforces by an average of 4.0. Small business ‘job creation' still has not crossed the 0 line in over 2 years"
increases in regulation place a disproportionate burden on small firms. this is why there are so few in europe. as we move to emulate their failing model, we will get the same thing.
IBM now has around 100,000 US employees, down from 270,000 less than 10 years ago.
That, and they won't give you any official number of people in the US. Estimates are indeed just estimates.
this is not creative destruction, it's sclerotic destruction - all the damage, none of the gains from re-allocating capital.
At least I can agree on that.
Oh, and if you're wondering why I say what I do:
Employers Lowballing New Hires
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Oh, and if you're wondering why I say what I do:
Employers Lowballing New Hires"
Interesting article, sethstorm, thanks for the link. I thought the following quote was particularly interesting:
"Some job hunters leap too soon at low-paying jobs, while others may be too optimistic about how their skills translate into a current wage and hold out for too long, experts say."
6/06/2010 1:53 PM
Employers Lowballing New Hires
That's precisely what should happen during a recession (something to do with supply and demand I think). Unfortunately, with Congress extending unemployment benefits as far as the next election can see, the out-of-work aren't as eager to accept lower salaries than they might have been.
Craig said...
"Unfortunately, with Congress extending unemployment benefits as far as the next election can see..."
Even though many of us are outraged by these clowns in Congress, and have plans to toss them out on their ears, we are nonetheless financing their reelection campaigns in this manner.
That's precisely what should happen during a recession (something to do with supply and demand I think).
Except when there is an unnatural (and political, courtesy of those waiting for political expedience) downward pressure, as with this economy.
Unfortunately, with Congress extending unemployment benefits as far as the next election can see, the out-of-work aren't as eager to accept lower salaries than they might have been.
Again, you're asking the unemployed to take the sacrifice. Why should they take brunt of the risk and loss?
At this point, you either STFU about the extensions or try meeting the legal US citizens (by moving the wage upward) and hiring them on a non-temporary basis.
Someone who takes a job that far down is making things worse the next time around.
"Except when there is an unnatural (and political, courtesy of those waiting for political expedience) downward pressure, as with this economy."
Nothing unnatural about it. In a recession prices drop. That includes the price of labor. Craig is 100% correct that it's a supply & demand thing.
"Again, you're asking the unemployed to take the sacrifice. Why should they take brunt of the risk and loss?"
You are asking those who are now working, and are taxpayers, to sacrifice by supporting those who aren't through federal unemployment benefit extensions. It's time for you to sacrifice a little.
"At this point, you either STFU about the extensions or try meeting the legal US citizens (by moving the wage upward) and hiring them on a non-temporary basis."
OK, let's say hire a permanent worker at a wage above market. When I am forced out of business because I can't make enough to pay my labor, how is that helping that worker? Keep in mind, she may no longer be eligible for unemployment benefits.
And, it WOULD be a "she", by the way, because I only have to pay a woman 80% of what I pay a man.
Quit whining & get a job, sethstorm.
"Thats precisely what should happen during a recession"
Maybe but what you also have to remember is that the recession will end.
A smart employer would be better off assessing a potential employee properly to try and get loyal long term high quality people particularly in management positions.
Remember loyalty in an expanding company is one of the best attributes of an employee and if you are going to keep these people you have to look after them or they will leave and go somewhere else with intimate knowledge about your firm that can be used by a competitor against you.
Keep learning CRAIG.
OK, let's say hire a permanent worker at a wage above market. When I am forced out of business because I can't make enough to pay my labor, how is that helping that worker?
Then it becomes a question of:
A) Your business model
B) Do you expect them to care about it if you're not incurring a loss?
C) Are they aware of your business model outside of threatening adverse consequences(e.g. termination)
D) If they are, how are they aware of it?
At the very least, they should be aware of it enough to know when to go well beyond expectations. That is, if they're able & willing to help you avoid loss - that's quite connected to how much they want to be there.
They're not there to prop up a faulty business model as much as you're not there simply to provide the opportunity.
And, it WOULD be a "she", by the way, because I only have to pay a woman 80% of what I pay a man.
Well, now you have FMLA to worry about and all the regulations surrounding them. Never mind the fact that you did something to get around discrimination laws while still discriminating.
A smart employer would be better off assessing a potential employee properly to try and get loyal, long term, high quality people particularly in management positions.
Applies to all parts of the ladder. While someone may not necessarily have the authority or pay, those people are who get things done well. It's not something you have to do, but it is something you should want to do. Unfortunately, giving a damn is just too costly these days.
"Then it becomes a question of:
A) Your business model
B) Do you expect them to care about it if you're not incurring a loss?
C) Are they aware of your business model outside of threatening adverse consequences(e.g. termination)
D) If they are, how are they aware of it?
Who, seth, who is they?
"At the very least, they should be aware of it enough to know when to go well beyond expectations. That is, if they're able & willing to help you avoid loss - that's quite connected to how much they want to be there."
Who, seth, is this my new employee you're talking about?
How would they be able & willing to help me avoid loss? By accepting a cut in pay? If so, I'm already telling them up front that that's what's required for me to take on a new employee. What's all the rest of this hard to read gibberish?
"Maybe but what you also have to remember is that the recession will end.
A smart employer would be better off assessing a potential employee properly to try and get loyal long term high quality people particularly in management positions."
grant, you seem to have this exactly backwards. Those "high quality people" who are loyal are the ones who are still working. Some of those currently being assessed are those who are less valuable and were previously laid off. If they are hired and prove their value, they may escape unemployment during the next downturn.
"Remember loyalty in an expanding company is one of the best attributes of an employee and if you are going to keep these people you have to look after them..."
As before, a valuable employee will likely be recognized by a successful company, and rewarded accordingly.
...or they will leave and go somewhere else with intimate knowledge about your firm that can be used by a competitor against you.
Any employee is free to chose other employment if they are dissatisfied with their current conditions, but in reality, few have "intimate knowledge" of value to a competitor. Those who do, are likely bound by non-disclosure agreements that prohibit them from revealing it.
Also, I noticed the snarky remark you aimed at Craig to "keep learning", and I couldn't help laughing when I read it. It's not my job to defend him, and he certainly doesn't need me to do so, but in my judgment, having read comments by both of you, if anyone should heed that advise, it isn't Craig.
RON H:
The comment:- "keep learning" Meant academically,It didn't refer to my comment or to him personally!
RON H:
If you can recall back in the 80's there was a theory brandished around called "DOWNSIZING" when companies were shedding as many of their staff as possible so there seemed to be a continuous stream of new unemployed. When this stupidity stopped the economy gradually started to grow.
Who, seth, is this my new employee you're talking about?
Yes.
How would they be able & willing to help me avoid loss?
By accepting a cut in pay?
Something like that if the (innumerable) circumstances are right. Should you have a good reputation with them (and likewise), you will get all the support that you need.
If so, I'm already telling them up front that that's what's required for me to take on a new employee.
It's not just what you have to do, it's what you want to do but don't have to do or necessarily do on a regular basis.
What's all the rest of this hard to read gibberish?
What you call gibberish are concepts that were last seen in the 1980's, with a toe-tag in the 1990's. Try talking to someone who can decipher those concepts if you have any trouble.
There were times when happiness and prosperity didn't need so many regulatory supports. Things got done because there was trust and respect. Now, it requires them to do so.
"There were times when happiness and prosperity didn't need so many regulatory supports. Things got done because there was trust and respect. Now, it requires them to do so."
I know what you mean sethstorm, when I was in high school my parents supported me and life was good. Now they seem reluctant to do so. They are demanding that I leave their basement. How can they be so cruel?
I'm sometimes afraid to go out for fear they will move my stuff out to the street. I don't trust them anymore, and I feel that they don't respect me.
Government regulations are beginning to help, though, as people like me are now covered on their parents medical until age 26.
"If you can recall back in the 80's there was a theory brandished around called "DOWNSIZING" when companies were shedding as many of their staff as possible so there seemed to be a continuous stream of new unemployed. "
I can recall back in the '80's the economy creating around 20 million jobs on net.
"When this stupidity stopped the economy gradually started to grow."
Interesting economic theory. I guess all the layoffs in the past couple years caused the economic crisis.
I hadn't heard that.
Post a Comment
<< Home