与其他公司相比,多数员工所有的公司在大流行期间的反应

Joseph R. Blasi, D. Kruse, Dan Weltmann
{"title":"与其他公司相比,多数员工所有的公司在大流行期间的反应","authors":"Joseph R. Blasi, D. Kruse, Dan Weltmann","doi":"10.1108/jpeo-09-2021-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this study is to understand how majority employee-owned firms responded to the pandemic compared to firms that were not majority employee-owned. The Employee Ownership Foundation partnered with Rutgers University and the SSRS survey firm to survey ESOP and non-ESOP firms about their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. A key purpose of the survey was to estimate firm-level changes in employment from mid-January to August (current employment figures were adjusted to August 5 using BLS industry employment trends). The survey also looked at other forms of adjustment and responses to the pandemic as reviewed below. The focus in this study is on the differences between firms that are majority owned by ESOPs and those that are not.Design/methodology/approachThe survey included 247 executives from ESOP Association member companies and 500 executives from an SSRS business panel constructed to be representative of US companies with 50 or more employees. The survey started on August 5 and ended on September 23, 2020.Findings(1) Majority ESOP firms had employment declines from January to August that were on average only one-fourth as large as for other firms. The difference is maintained when controlling for industry membership. (2) Majority ESOP firms were more likely to be declared “essential,” but the lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms remain among essential and non-essential businesses. As essential businesses, majority ESOP firms were more likely receive Paycheck Protection Program or other government pandemic assistance, but both assistance recipients and non-recipients had lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms. (3) The extent of employment cutbacks was higher for non-managers than for managers, but the manager/non-manager gap was higher among other firms than among majority ESOP firms.Research limitations/implicationsThis study supports empirical findings done previously.Practical implicationsThis study suggests to non-EO firms what they can do.Social implicationsThis study suggests strengths of EO firms.Originality/valueA very original and one-of-a-kind dataset.","PeriodicalId":354541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The response of majority employee-owned firms during the pandemic compared to other firms\",\"authors\":\"Joseph R. Blasi, D. Kruse, Dan Weltmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jpeo-09-2021-0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe purpose of this study is to understand how majority employee-owned firms responded to the pandemic compared to firms that were not majority employee-owned. The Employee Ownership Foundation partnered with Rutgers University and the SSRS survey firm to survey ESOP and non-ESOP firms about their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. A key purpose of the survey was to estimate firm-level changes in employment from mid-January to August (current employment figures were adjusted to August 5 using BLS industry employment trends). The survey also looked at other forms of adjustment and responses to the pandemic as reviewed below. The focus in this study is on the differences between firms that are majority owned by ESOPs and those that are not.Design/methodology/approachThe survey included 247 executives from ESOP Association member companies and 500 executives from an SSRS business panel constructed to be representative of US companies with 50 or more employees. The survey started on August 5 and ended on September 23, 2020.Findings(1) Majority ESOP firms had employment declines from January to August that were on average only one-fourth as large as for other firms. The difference is maintained when controlling for industry membership. (2) Majority ESOP firms were more likely to be declared “essential,” but the lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms remain among essential and non-essential businesses. As essential businesses, majority ESOP firms were more likely receive Paycheck Protection Program or other government pandemic assistance, but both assistance recipients and non-recipients had lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms. (3) The extent of employment cutbacks was higher for non-managers than for managers, but the manager/non-manager gap was higher among other firms than among majority ESOP firms.Research limitations/implicationsThis study supports empirical findings done previously.Practical implicationsThis study suggests to non-EO firms what they can do.Social implicationsThis study suggests strengths of EO firms.Originality/valueA very original and one-of-a-kind dataset.\",\"PeriodicalId\":354541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jpeo-09-2021-0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jpeo-09-2021-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究的目的是了解与非多数员工所有的公司相比,多数员工所有的公司如何应对大流行。员工持股基金会与罗格斯大学和SSRS调查公司合作,调查了员工持股和非员工持股公司对2019冠状病毒病大流行的反应。该调查的一个关键目的是估计1月中旬至8月公司层面的就业变化(当前就业数据根据劳工统计局行业就业趋势调整至8月5日)。调查还考察了其他形式的调整和应对大流行病的措施,如下所述。本研究的重点是由esop持有多数股权的公司与非esop持有多数股权的公司之间的差异。设计/方法/方法调查对象包括247名员工持股计划协会成员公司的高管,以及500名员工持股计划商业小组的高管,该小组旨在代表拥有50名或以上员工的美国公司。调查开始于8月5日,结束于9月23日。调查结果(1)从1月到8月,大多数ESOP公司的就业人数下降幅度平均仅为其他公司的四分之一。当控制行业成员资格时,差异仍然存在。(2)多数ESOP公司更有可能被宣布为“必要的”,但多数ESOP公司中较低的裁员幅度仍然存在于必要和非必要的业务中。作为重要的企业,大多数ESOP公司更有可能获得薪水保护计划或其他政府流行病援助,但在大多数ESOP公司中,接受援助和非接受援助的公司都有较低的裁员率。(3)非管理人员的裁员程度高于管理人员,但其他公司的经理/非经理差距高于多数ESOP公司。研究局限性/启示本研究支持了之前的实证研究结果。本研究对非eo公司提出了建议。社会意义本研究表明了EO公司的优势。原创性/价值一个非常原始且独一无二的数据集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The response of majority employee-owned firms during the pandemic compared to other firms
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to understand how majority employee-owned firms responded to the pandemic compared to firms that were not majority employee-owned. The Employee Ownership Foundation partnered with Rutgers University and the SSRS survey firm to survey ESOP and non-ESOP firms about their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. A key purpose of the survey was to estimate firm-level changes in employment from mid-January to August (current employment figures were adjusted to August 5 using BLS industry employment trends). The survey also looked at other forms of adjustment and responses to the pandemic as reviewed below. The focus in this study is on the differences between firms that are majority owned by ESOPs and those that are not.Design/methodology/approachThe survey included 247 executives from ESOP Association member companies and 500 executives from an SSRS business panel constructed to be representative of US companies with 50 or more employees. The survey started on August 5 and ended on September 23, 2020.Findings(1) Majority ESOP firms had employment declines from January to August that were on average only one-fourth as large as for other firms. The difference is maintained when controlling for industry membership. (2) Majority ESOP firms were more likely to be declared “essential,” but the lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms remain among essential and non-essential businesses. As essential businesses, majority ESOP firms were more likely receive Paycheck Protection Program or other government pandemic assistance, but both assistance recipients and non-recipients had lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms. (3) The extent of employment cutbacks was higher for non-managers than for managers, but the manager/non-manager gap was higher among other firms than among majority ESOP firms.Research limitations/implicationsThis study supports empirical findings done previously.Practical implicationsThis study suggests to non-EO firms what they can do.Social implicationsThis study suggests strengths of EO firms.Originality/valueA very original and one-of-a-kind dataset.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信