Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Key Temp Employment Index Reaches YTD High

The American Staffing Association Index, a weekly barometer of temporary and contract employment, a key coincident economic indicator, and a leading indicator of U.S. payroll employment, reached a year-to-date high of 90 for the week ending September 18 (see chart above).  For comparable weeks in the last three years, the staffing index was 91 in 2008, 72 in 2009, and 90 in 2010.  During most years like 2007, 2009 and 2010, the temporary staffing activity increases towards year-end, so if that pattern prevails this year, we can expect ongoing improvements in temporary and contract employment this fall.  

14 Comments:

At 9/27/2011 5:09 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Employers don't need to pay the health insurance premium for temps . . .

 
At 9/27/2011 9:34 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Employers don't need to pay the health insurance premium for temps . . ."

Bingo! I think you've found the solution to that pesky Obamacare problem.

 
At 9/27/2011 11:37 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Employers don't need to pay the health insurance premium for temps . .


Then fix that problem - the more middlemen you involve between the employer and the work, the more benefits that have to be paid. Give direct FT a huge tax cut, and multiply the benefit/liability requirements for temporary labor so that it is uneconomic as a legal dodge.



Temporary employment is the sign of a problem. People dont usually go into it with the idea of flexibility - but as a resentful, last-ditch means of survival.



Bingo! I think you've found the solution to that pesky Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act problem.


So the solution is to take away the power from the person doing the work, and give it to the employer and his middlemen that protect him legally?

The solution is to make temporary work uneconomic for the large scale. Not reserve the security of regular work and the ability to do longterm planning for the few.

 
At 9/28/2011 4:54 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Then fix that problem - the more middlemen you involve between the employer and the work, the more benefits that have to be paid. Give direct FT a huge tax cut, and multiply the benefit/liability requirements for temporary labor so that it is uneconomic as a legal dodge."

Who are you addressing with these instructions, someone at Carpe Diem?

I don't know about anyone else, but I have no ability to do the thinks you are demanding.

 
At 9/28/2011 9:32 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

mark-

you have been saying that permanent staffing is going to catch up with this index any day now for 18 months.

at what point are you going to accept that they have decoupled?

 
At 9/28/2011 9:56 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


at what point are you going to accept that they have decoupled?

Decoupled, in what way?

 
At 9/28/2011 1:48 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Seth, I believe the way to solve the problem is to decouple health insurance from employment entirely. The government can stop giving such a strong incentive (which creates an expectation) of your employer paying a majority of your health care premiums.

I can neither make heads nor tails of your post(s). And no, that is not an invitation to explain . . .

 
At 9/28/2011 2:22 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Something tells me that though temp employment might be good at filling particular niches for set time periods, overall it might not be helping the economy much...

Mind you I'm just guessing but I'm thinking that temp employees don't have near the spending power needed to help this economy out of the deep trough its in...

From US News & World Report: 15 Stunning Statistics About the Jobs Market

 
At 9/28/2011 9:53 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Ron H. said...
Towards the article in question, the concepts as presented, and the way temporary work is used as a dodge on benefits.

 
At 9/28/2011 10:02 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Seth, I believe the way to solve the problem is to decouple health insurance from employment entirely. The government can stop giving such a strong incentive (which creates an expectation) of your employer paying a majority of your health care premiums.

I'd have to disagree on that. That makes work even less attractive, since there is less of a pull to work.

What I'm suggesting is to disincentivize temporary employment's use as a dodge on liabilities or benefits. The less direct the employment, the more benefits and liabilities required. If it's direct/FTE, a huge tax cut comes into play; this employer-side tax cut follows the worker.

 
At 9/28/2011 10:05 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Towards the article in question, the concepts as presented, and the way temporary work is used as a dodge on benefits."

Ahh. That clears things right up. I'm not sure how many at the American Staffing Association read Carpe Diem, and they are almost certainly unaware of you. (lucky stiffs)

You might visit their website & hurl nonsense at them directly, to better effect.

 
At 9/28/2011 10:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The solution is to make temporary work uneconomic for the large scale. Not reserve the security of regular work and the ability to do longterm planning for the few."

But isn't reserving security for the few the goal of unions?

 
At 9/29/2011 8:36 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Ron H. said...

How about trying something other than character assassination?

 
At 9/30/2011 1:53 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"How about trying something other than character assassination?"

How about writing some meaningful comments instead of nonsense all the time?

How about starting a business as Methinks suggested?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home