.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report for October 2016 showed average hourly earnings in private non-farm payrolls rising 10 cents to $25.92, an increase of 2.8 percent compared to October 2015. While it's good news to see paychecks rising again -- a boon for both the U.S. and world economies -- American workers still face stiff headwinds from international competition and advances in technology. Employers, workers, and policy makers need new tools for facing these challenges.
One measure to consider is actually a tried-and-true practice that should be revived and expanded, the sabbatical. Some employers, mainly larger businesses and institutions, still offer professionals a mid-career break to recharge their intellectual batteries or learn new skills. In the U.S. military, for example, assignments at National Defense University or the service war colleges serve that function. The breaks help prepare mid-career professionals for more complex and higher-level challenges, such as leading complex operating units or to prepare for C-level management.
But even for non-management workers, the time away learning new skills or just using different parts of their brains, can help employees increase their contributions to their employers. These greater contributions should qualify higher-performing individuals for more responsible jobs and bigger paychecks.
While sabbaticals may be relatively rare today, the practice could be fashioned to help workers and their employers become more productive and better prepared for the 21st century economy. From a public policy standpoint, however, creating a program of this kind requires a light touch, to fit the wide variety of industries and jobs out there. And to be at all practical, the program -- called Universal Sabbatical for Advancement, or USA -- would need to be customized for each company and individual worker.
Modeled After the G.I. Bill
The USA program would be patterned after the G.I. Bill, first introduced as a well-earned benefit for veterans after World War II, and updated most recently in 2008 for veterans returning from post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2008 version of the G.I. Bill provides a one-time opportunity for up to 36 months of education benefits, payable for 15 years following service members’ release from active duty.
Veterans can earn full tuition and fees for in-state students at public colleges and universities, as well as stipends for housing, books, and supplies. Benefits for veterans going to private or foreign schools are capped at a national maximum rate. Some private institutions or out-of-state schools, however, offer supplemental benefits to bridge the gap between in-state tuition rates and those charged to the student. (I reported on the 2008 G.I. Bill for Science magazine, during its Congressional debate and start-up.)
The USA program would, like the GI Bill, offer a one-time benefit to participants, but with much tighter requirements and more limits. Workers from age 30 to 55 would be eligible for USA grants for 12 months to cover training classes, get an advanced degree, or enroll in online courses full time. Course work, books, and fees would be paid up to the level of in-state tuition or its equivalent at their state universities. To defray living costs while away from work, workers would also get unemployment benefits for that 12-month period. Employers would get tax breaks for extra costs incurred while the employee was away, such as hiring temporary help.
For the program to work, however, employers and employees would need to carefully plan this experience, to best fit the employee's career goals and the employer's business needs. Both parties should spell out in detail the skills the employee develops while in the program. The more detailed that enumeration of skills the better -- employer and employee know what to expect out of the experience, and can use that detailed list of skills to evaluate educational options.
What if the employee wants to take part in the USA program, but the employer isn't interested? The employee would have to ask some hard questions about the value of staying with that employer, balancing current income needs against future advancement. Participants could still exercise their one-year benefits after quitting their jobs, but it would require taking a risk of finding a new job that could use the skills learned in class.
Institutions Must Deliver
For public colleges and universities, the USA program could be a well-needed boost. Like the GI Bill, it would provide institutions with a new pool of highly-motivated students, many from backgrounds not always found on today's campuses. The institutions, however, would need to deliver on building the skills sought by employees, since participants get only one shot at these benefits. In many cases, community colleges with industrial training departments may be better options. Given the recent disclosures of ineffective teaching and high-pressure sales tactics, for-profit colleges would need extra scrutiny before taking part.
The USA program could solve a continuing problem voiced by American companies working in advanced technologies. As reported on my Science & Enterprise site in February 2015, the CEOs of Stanley Black and Decker and Siemens-USA told a Brookings Institution conference they had to establish training and apprenticeship classes at local community colleges to staff many of their well-paid highly technical jobs. These employers could use the USA program to train current staff or promising recruits for these jobs.
Like the G.I. Bill, the USA program would offer workers and their employers opportunities, but not guarantees, of advancement and higher productivity. But given the challenges of advanced technology and global competition, those may be risks worth taking for both parties.
About the author: Alan Kotok is editor and publisher of Science & Enterprise, a web site reporting daily on the intersection of science and business. He previously served as managing editor of Science Careers, an online portal of Science magazine.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
A Break That Delivers for Employers and Workers
January 19, 2017
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report for October 2016 showed average hourly earnings in private non-farm payrolls rising 10 cents to $25.92, an increase of 2.8 percent compared to October 2015. While it's good news to see paychecks rising again -- a boon for both the U.S. and world economies -- American workers still face stiff headwinds from international competition and advances in technology. Employers, workers, and policy makers need new tools for facing these challenges.
One measure to consider is actually a tried-and-true practice that should be revived and expanded, the sabbatical. Some employers, mainly larger businesses and institutions, still offer professionals a mid-career break to recharge their intellectual batteries or learn new skills. In the U.S. military, for example, assignments at National Defense University or the service war colleges serve that function. The breaks help prepare mid-career professionals for more complex and higher-level challenges, such as leading complex operating units or to prepare for C-level management.
But even for non-management workers, the time away learning new skills or just using different parts of their brains, can help employees increase their contributions to their employers. These greater contributions should qualify higher-performing individuals for more responsible jobs and bigger paychecks.
While sabbaticals may be relatively rare today, the practice could be fashioned to help workers and their employers become more productive and better prepared for the 21st century economy. From a public policy standpoint, however, creating a program of this kind requires a light touch, to fit the wide variety of industries and jobs out there. And to be at all practical, the program -- called Universal Sabbatical for Advancement, or USA -- would need to be customized for each company and individual worker.
Modeled After the G.I. Bill
The USA program would be patterned after the G.I. Bill, first introduced as a well-earned benefit for veterans after World War II, and updated most recently in 2008 for veterans returning from post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2008 version of the G.I. Bill provides a one-time opportunity for up to 36 months of education benefits, payable for 15 years following service members’ release from active duty.
Veterans can earn full tuition and fees for in-state students at public colleges and universities, as well as stipends for housing, books, and supplies. Benefits for veterans going to private or foreign schools are capped at a national maximum rate. Some private institutions or out-of-state schools, however, offer supplemental benefits to bridge the gap between in-state tuition rates and those charged to the student. (I reported on the 2008 G.I. Bill for Science magazine, during its Congressional debate and start-up.)
The USA program would, like the GI Bill, offer a one-time benefit to participants, but with much tighter requirements and more limits. Workers from age 30 to 55 would be eligible for USA grants for 12 months to cover training classes, get an advanced degree, or enroll in online courses full time. Course work, books, and fees would be paid up to the level of in-state tuition or its equivalent at their state universities. To defray living costs while away from work, workers would also get unemployment benefits for that 12-month period. Employers would get tax breaks for extra costs incurred while the employee was away, such as hiring temporary help.
For the program to work, however, employers and employees would need to carefully plan this experience, to best fit the employee's career goals and the employer's business needs. Both parties should spell out in detail the skills the employee develops while in the program. The more detailed that enumeration of skills the better -- employer and employee know what to expect out of the experience, and can use that detailed list of skills to evaluate educational options.
What if the employee wants to take part in the USA program, but the employer isn't interested? The employee would have to ask some hard questions about the value of staying with that employer, balancing current income needs against future advancement. Participants could still exercise their one-year benefits after quitting their jobs, but it would require taking a risk of finding a new job that could use the skills learned in class.
Institutions Must Deliver
For public colleges and universities, the USA program could be a well-needed boost. Like the GI Bill, it would provide institutions with a new pool of highly-motivated students, many from backgrounds not always found on today's campuses. The institutions, however, would need to deliver on building the skills sought by employees, since participants get only one shot at these benefits. In many cases, community colleges with industrial training departments may be better options. Given the recent disclosures of ineffective teaching and high-pressure sales tactics, for-profit colleges would need extra scrutiny before taking part.
The USA program could solve a continuing problem voiced by American companies working in advanced technologies. As reported on my Science & Enterprise site in February 2015, the CEOs of Stanley Black and Decker and Siemens-USA told a Brookings Institution conference they had to establish training and apprenticeship classes at local community colleges to staff many of their well-paid highly technical jobs. These employers could use the USA program to train current staff or promising recruits for these jobs.
Like the G.I. Bill, the USA program would offer workers and their employers opportunities, but not guarantees, of advancement and higher productivity. But given the challenges of advanced technology and global competition, those may be risks worth taking for both parties.
About the author: Alan Kotok is editor and publisher of Science & Enterprise, a web site reporting daily on the intersection of science and business. He previously served as managing editor of Science Careers, an online portal of Science magazine.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
