July 2013 MSEC Bulletin by MSEC

JULY 2013

EMPLOYMENT LAW

SURVEYS

HUMAN RESOURCES

TRAINING

Part X: A Focus on Plan Costs Peggy Hoyt-Hoch, Employment Law Services Page 1 A Focus on Plan Costs Page 2 2013 Legislative Summary Public Employers: Using MSEC’s Compensation Survey in the Public Sector Page 3 Tenth Circuit Finds Employee’s Request for Flexible Schedule Unreasonable Page 4 You Asked: What Can Employers Say in an Employment Reference? Page 5 Volunteer Programs: Everyone Wins Video Interviewing: The New Recruiting Tool Page 6 Survey News Page 7 Economic Perspective

As January 1, 2014 draws closer, employers are focusing in on plan costs under health care reform.

Connect for Colorado Employers in Colorado will soon have information from the Colorado Healthcare Exchange Marketplace, called Connect for Health Colorado. Rates and plan options to be offered will be published this August. The Colorado Department of Insurance is currently reviewing the plans submitted for consideration by 11 different insurance companies interested in offering plans through the exchange. The state insurance commission must approve all plans and rates before they are offered to the public. They will apply to coverage during the 2014 year with the open enrollment period beginning October 1, 2013. Eleven carriers have submitted more than 150 plans to be offered to individuals and families, as well as more than 100 to be offered to the small group market. The level of benefits varies based upon whether the plan is submitted for approval as a platinum plan, a gold plan, a silver plan, or a bronze plan (with respective actuarial values of 90, 80, 70, and 60 percent). A quick peek at the submitted plans reveals that most of the bronze plan designs, which are the least costly plans that meet the required Minimum Value standards, are proposed to have annual deductibles of $4,500 or greater, per person. If approved, there is a good chance that employers will move rapidly into the high deductible plan designs and also offer an accompanying tax-advantaged individual account option, such as an HSA, an Integrated HRA, or a 125 Flexible Spending Account. The list of carriers and designs may be reviewed at www.connectforhealthco.com/.

The premium rates under each of the health care reform compliant plans—once approved—may vary by person based upon only four criteria: 1) where in Colorado you live, 2) your age, 3) your family status, and 4) tobacco use. Final rules published in June confirm that tobacco users may be charged 50 percent of the plan costs.

MSEC Survey Results – Healthcare Costs The 2013 Health and Welfare Plans Survey for Colorado and Wyoming was published in April 2013. Below we highlight findings regarding member health care benefits costs. The average cost per employee for health care in Colorado in 2012 among the almost 250 participating employers was $8,299. As expected, the larger the employer, the greater the cost. Wyoming’s per-employee average was higher at $10,724, but with fewer participants. There was also the typical swing by industry type with utilities, transportation/communication at the highest, followed closely by government employers. The least costly average was in the construction industry. For information on the survey methodology and definitions, consult the survey at MSEC.org. In terms of plan delivery, the most popular model is still the Preferred Provider Organization. Moving up rapidly into second place is the High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) which, more often than not, is accompanied by a Health Savings Account (HSA). Telemedicine was mentioned at MSEC’s Employment Law Update. Consistent with the MSEC survey results, across Colorado the majority of plans (on average about 75 percent) include a “Nurse Line” for immediate medical information on a phone call. Continued on page 3

Denver 303.839.5177 Scottsdale 602.955.7558 Colorado Springs 719.667.0677 Fort Collins 970.223.4107 Fax 303.861.4403 Toll Free 800.884.1328

2013 Legislative Summary Tina Harkness, Membership Development We want to make you aware of these new Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming laws affecting employers.

Arizona: HB 2147 requires claimants for unemployment compensation to provide sufficient information for the Department of Economic Security (DES) to determine benefits eligibility. If a claimant is able to produce information and does not, DES may disallow benefits until the claimant does so. The law also shifts the burden of proof to the claimant if an employer provides documentation that the claimant voluntarily resigned or abandoned his or her job. And, the law requires DES to make reasonable efforts to obtain the information necessary to determine benefits eligibility and requires employers to provide relevant information to DES upon request. The law takes effect 90 days after the end of the 2013 legislative session. HB 2280 appears to prevent an Arizona city, town, or other political subdivision from passing its own laws requiring employers to pay a “living wage” above the federal or state minimum wage, provide additional paid or unpaid leave, mandate break and meal periods, or require other employee benefits. The law does not, however, apply to employees of an Arizona city, town, or other political subdivision of the State. This law takes effect 90 days after the end of the 2013 legislative session.

Colorado: HB13-1222, The Family Care Act, expands the group of family members employees can take leave to care for to include parties to civil unions and domestic partners. The law covers

employers who fall under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Eligible employees will be able to take 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period. Leave taken under the Family Care Act will not count against an employee’s FMLA leave; however, FMLA leave will count against an employee’s leave under the Family Care Act. The Act takes effect August 7, 2013. HB13-1136 expands the remedies available under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to include compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. This law will allow plaintiffs to file in state court and receive the same remedies formerly only available under federal law. The Act adopts the caps set on compensatory and punitive damages in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1991 for employers with 15 or more employees and caps damages for employers with one to four employees at $10,000, and $25,000 for employers with five to 14 employees. The law takes effect August 7, 2013, however, the new remedies apply to causes of action accruing on or after January 1, 2015. SB13-011, The Colorado Civil Union Act, allows formation of civil unions and gives parties to civil unions the same rights and obligations as spouses under state law. The law took effect May 1, 2013; however, the requirements to offer parties to civil unions participation in life insurance plans and “health coverage plans,” if spouses are offered coverage, are effective for plans issued, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2014. SB13-018, The Employment Opportunity Act, prohibits public and private employers (except state and local law enforcement) from using consumer credit information for employment purposes absent a showing that the information Continued on next page

Using MSEC’s Compensation Survey in the Public Sector Lorrie Ray, Membership Development MSEC’s compensation survey for the public sector should be published by the time you read this article. Do you review this survey when making compensation decisions? If not, please do consider doing so. You will find a wealth of information, as well as information about the salary paid in comparative jobs across many different counties and cities. If you do use this survey, this article may help you understand the survey more completely so that it can be as helpful as is possible. Many of us when looking at survey data go straight to the page that has the job we are looking for without taking a close look at the construction of the survey and what other information it offers.

While this is certainly understandable, consider taking a closer look. The public sector survey begins with an introduction that outlines how many organizations participated and how many jobs were surveyed. It also lists who participated and, if a city or county, what the citizen population is of that public entity. This helps users compare participants to their organization. It goes on to list jobs that have remained constant, dropped out, changed, or are new to the survey, so as to create a larger view of areas of consistency and change in the public sector. It also explains how to read the salary data properly. The methodology is described so that those using the survey understand how The Bulletin

July 2013

MSEC.org

many participated and what information was used in creating the survey, as well as what information was excluded from the data. It defines the position levels, so that when seen in the survey, the data is compared properly. General information includes data about which employers have collective bargaining agreements and which do not for police and firefighters. It provides data on how many employees are at the maximum of the salary range, whether bonuses are available, and whether midpoints in the salary range are used as control points. We hope this information is helpful. If you still have questions, our excellent survey staff is happy to help you.

Tenth Circuit Finds Employee’s Request for Flexible Schedule Unreasonable Jennifer England, Employment Law Services Employers often struggle to determine what is “reasonable” when it comes to accommodating disabilities in the workplace. Depending on the situation, there are limits to what is considered reasonable, as was shown in a recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case. In Murphy v. Samson Resources Co. (10th Cir. 2013), the court held that a flexible work schedule is not a reasonable accommodation if it will not allow the employee to perform the essential functions of her job, which can include regular and punctual attendance.

Murphy worked as an accounting assistant, preparing vouchers and making journal entries. Her job description stated that regular and punctual attendance was an essential function of the job. Murphy missed work intermittently due to migraine headaches. Samson agreed to allow her to make up missed work time, but she was not always able to do so and this resulted in a negative PTO balance. Murphy also had performance issues including errors in payments and payments she made to the wrong vendors. Murphy applied

for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, but did not submit an updated medical certification or returnto-work document after an absence. When Murphy was absent without medical documentation to support her leave, Samson terminated her. Murphy sued Samson for discriminating against her due to a disability and for failing to provide reasonable accommodation. She claimed that a flexible schedule and a leave of absence would have allowed her to return to work performing the essential functions of her Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

is substantially related to either a current or potential job. Employers must allow applicants or employees an opportunity to explain any unusual or mitigating circumstances that may not reflect on money management skills. The Division of Labor and Employment will enforce this law and provide a procedure for complaints. Civil penalties up to $2,500 may be assessed for violations. The law takes effect July 1, 2013. SB13-025, The Colorado Firefighter Safety Act, gives professional firefighters the ability to bargain collectively. The law applies to public employers including municipalities, counties, and special districts, but not volunteer firefighters. The law also does not apply to home rule cities with language in their charters on the effective date. In that case, a vote of the citizens will determine if the city is subject to collective bargaining. The law took effect June 5, 2013. SB13-147 establishes that an employer’s workers’ compensation insurance is only required to cover actual employees. This law was passed after a Court of Appeals decision opened up the possibility for an employer to be liable for the injury of an employee that works for another company. The law took effect June 5, 2013. Two bills that we were tracking closely did not pass this session. They are HB13-1227, The Income Protection Act, which would have made it a crime for employers to withhold back wages or benefits and HB13-1304 concerning receipt of unemployment benefits during a lockout.

Wyoming: HB 79 allows employers who have a clear policy stating employees lose all accrued vacation upon termination of employment to no longer pay out accrued, unused vacation time upon termination. The policy must be in writing, and must be acknowledged in writing by each employee. The policy may be in an employee handbook, and the employee’s signature on the handbook acknowledgement will be sufficient. The law takes effect July 1, 2013.

The Bulletin

Continued from page 1

Also queried was whether the plan offers a reduced premium for nonsmokers/increased premium for smokers. Those percentages came in below 10 percent most typically. It will be interesting to view the numbers next year once plans are able to charge 50 percent of premium costs to tobacco users.

Consumerism and Cost Variations Reporting of provider costs and outcomes is becoming mainstream and will continue. This consumer approach makes it easier for participants to make better, more informed decisions while at the same time saving out-of-pocket and benefit plan costs. Here we look at two common medical events that benefit from a little comparison. A recent Employee Benefits News article reported this comparison: a knee MRI in Seattle can cost anywhere from $460 to $2,470; a hip replacement in New York runs $13,137 at Coney Island Hospital or $38,588 at Lenox Hill. These numbers don’t take into account differences in quality of care that should also be researched and considered. As reform unfolds, it will be even more important for employers to educate employees and to offer tools and resources for employees to compare value and quality before making health care decisions. Cadillac Tax The Affordable Care Act includes a 40 percent tax on employee benefits beginning in 2018 for any health plan that exceeds $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Initially, this Cadillac tax was projected to raise $137 billion in revenue over the next decade. However, in May 2013, the Congressional Budget Office revised this estimate to $80 billion. “I don’t think there’s any employer that’s going to pay the tax,” said Steve Wojcik, whose Washington-based trade group represents employers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., American Express Co. and Target Corp. “I would be surprised if they even collect” the lower amount. Largely because of a drop-off in projected tax revenues, the estimated cost of implementing the law through 2023 rose by $40 billion to $1.36 trillion, the budget office said.

July 2013

MSEC.org

Human Resources Continued from previous page

job. Murphy did not dispute that regular and punctual attendance was an essential function of her job, but argued nonetheless that she was “qualified” because a flexible schedule would have enabled her to perform her job. The court rejected this argument because it found that even with the flexible schedule she was making mistakes and failing to make up the time she had missed. The court reiterated that an employee’s request to be relieved from an essential function is not a reasonable or even plausible accommodation. Murphy also argued that Samson should have granted her leave as a reasonable accommodation. Rejecting this argument, the court said that Murphy “failed to present evidence of the expected duration of

her impairment” and that it was “uncertain if or when Murphy would be able to return to work given the sporadic nature of her migraines.” Although decided under pre-ADAAA standards, this case contains positive points for employers to draw from to effectively manage accommodation requests, such as: • reviewing job descriptions to ensure they are accurate, • ascertaining whether the requested accommodation is due to a disability or for another reason, • identifying requests for reasonable accommodation and responding appropriately each time,

• documenting accomodation efforts and the interactive process, • training supervisors and managers to recognize accommodation requests and to respond appropriately, and • continuing to manage employee performance issues consistently. Employers should not assume that a requested accommodation is unreasonable, but instead analyze the request in the context of the essential functions of the job. Employers may use outside resources to identify possible reasonable accommodations, including medical documentation and resources like the Job Accommodation Network.

What Can Employers Say in an Employment Reference? Tina Harkness, Membership Development Knowing what you can and should say when another employer calls for a reference on a former employee can be difficult. Employers are generally not required to provide references. Many do not out of fear of defamation and other claims that may result if the former employee is not hired based on what they say. Those employers may choose instead to verify aspects of the former employee’s employment such as dates of employment, positions held, and final rate of pay. As this information is factual and easily verified, there is less risk in providing it. Yet, employers want references from other employers about applicants they are considering for hire. And, they become frustrated when told that the applicant’s former employer does not provide references. So, what’s to be done? If your company has chosen to provide only employment verifications, don’t deviate from that. There are good reasons for this choice. And, this keeps your company on the safe side of conservative. If, however, your company has decided to give references, here are some guidelines. Check State Law: Many states have laws providing immunity from suit for references provided in good faith by former employers. Tailoring your reference policy so that the information you provide fits within state law protections mitigates your risk and may provide a defense to potential claims. See our FYI Reference Checking: Providing References for details on state law protections in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Develop a Consistent Policy: This should include what information is provided and who is authorized to provide that information. Only a small number of individuals should be authorized to provide references on your company’s behalf,

The Bulletin

and the same information should be provided on each reference. Avoid providing lots of information about former employees who were well liked and successful, and little about those who were not; this is a red flag to prospective employers. Communicate: If you limit who is authorized to provide references, communicate this to supervisors and managers who will almost certainly be contacted for references. They need to know that they are not authorized to provide a reference, including recommendations on social media. They also need to know that there is no such thing as a “personal” reference. If the reference discusses the former employee’s work performance, it is an unauthorized professional reference. Ask for a Reference Release: Employers can ask exiting employees to sign a reference release as they leave the organization. This document authorizes the employer to give references about the former employee and releases the employer from liability for providing references. Access our FYI Reference Checking: Providing References to obtain a sample reference release. Stick to the Facts: Employment references should stick to objective facts about the former employee’s employment. It is even better if these facts are backed up by documentation in the former employee’s personnel file. Subjective opinion statements while neither true or false, may still trigger defamation claims. Do the Paperwork: Maintain a log documenting references given. The log should contain to whom the reference was given, what information was given, and when. Too often, employers challenged by former employees about what they believe to have been a “bad” reference do not have solid information to refute those claims.

July 2013

MSEC.org

Human Resources

Volunteer Programs: Everyone Wins David Cabrera, Human Resource Services Studies indicate that good corporate citizenship and a strong corporate reputation are highly correlated because people seek value not only from the products and services that organizations provide but from the way in which organizations impact society. One way in which employers can positively impact social and environmental issues is through volunteering.

Employees who view their employers and their jobs positively are more likely to feel engaged, motivated, and productive. Positive corporate citizenship also improves an employer’s brand in its efforts to recruit, motivate, and retain the best employees.

Allowing employees to volunteer shows that the employer cares about being a good corporate citizen, provides employees the opportunity to make a difference, and benefits the community in which the employer operates. Volunteering can promote leadership, skill development, and involvement, and can positively influence employees’ sense of purpose and meaning from their work.

• Partner with a community, school, charity, or non-profit group to organize a volunteer event that aligns with organizational and employee interests • Organize a food drive, fundraising event, or recycling program • Allow employees to volunteer individually for a certain amount of time each year

Here are some ideas that employers can consider:

• Promote organizations such as The United Way or VolunteerMatch as a way to link employee interests and volunteer opportunities • Match employee contributions to charitable causes up to a certain amount • Invite a community, school, charity, or non-profit group to speak to employees about how volunteering and giving make a difference • Promote skill-based volunteerism and pro-bono work A volunteer program does not have to cost a lot of time or money. It can be scaled to the organization’s resources and capabilities. With volunteer programs, everyone wins.

Video Interviewing: The New Recruiting Tool Donna Treber, Human Resource Services Today, most companies post their openings on electronic job boards and applicants from all across the country send in their resumes for consideration. Since recruiting is a timeintensive process, a logical question to ask is whether your organization can afford the additional time to talk to the outof-state applicant and the cost of bringing that applicant in for an interview?

body language, poise, and general demeanor. Seeing the candidate’s expressions helps you and the hiring manager to gauge his or her confidence and energy and see other personality factors. This may make the hiring decision easier, as the manager is not depending only on notes from a phone interview. A decision can be made faster to select a few candidates for face-to-face interviews.

New platforms are available for video interviewing, which are changing the face of the recruiting process. There are several vendors offering automated video interviews in place of the “old” telephone interview.

Most video-interview application vendors can, on request, help the candidate prepare for their interview by advising them how to dress, how to position the webcam so the he or she appears to be looking directly at the interviewer, and reminding them of the need to turn off cell phones and consider what is visible in the background.

Working with the provider company, you can tailor the process to your organization’s needs. Generally, you develop a set of 10 to 12 questions you want to ask candidates. The same questions are asked of each candidate. Per your instructions, the candidate contacts your provider and is emailed a link to your company’s branded screen. The candidate responds via a webcam to the displayed questions. They can do this at a time that is convenient for them, and this eliminates the need for you to juggle your schedule and time zone with numerous candidates to set up phone interviews. You can view interviews when they are completed, and forward all or just some of them to your hiring manager. Your hiring manager can view the interview and “see” the candidate’s

The Bulletin

Many vendors also offer live versions of their products. This allows HR professionals, managers, and applicants to see and talk to each other as they would in a video conference or in-house interview. This can be used later in the recruiting process and to complement or replace the face-to-face interview. International companies often have a hard time getting hiring managers and applicants in the same city at the same time, and this is a good alternative. Video interviewing may not be the right option for all hiring situations or for your organization just yet, but it may just be a matter of time until it becomes practical for you.

July 2013

MSEC.org

Survey News

Notice of Surveys Being Conducted:

2013 Colorado Benchmark Compensation Survey

Summer is Industry Surveys Time!

The 2013 Colorado Benchmark Compensation Survey incorporates the following Colorado areas—Front Range (Denver/Boulder, Northern Colorado, and Southern Colorado), Western Slope, and Resort. Displayed in the report are individual data lines for each location including an “All Front Range” and an “All Colorado” data line. Executive positions are also included in this survey. Data for 394 positions are displayed by manufacturing, non-manufacturing, and government for each geographic location, when sufficient data were available. This survey gathered base wages effective March 1, 2013.

Call Center Compensation – includes wage and salary data as well as personnel practices for call-center-oriented positions. Includes shift differentials and job absence rates. Rural Electric Association (REA) – collects data for entry level hiring rates, average cost of benefits, recruitment of new employees, SCADA, and bonuses/ incentives information in addition to compensation information and benefits data. Financial Services – collects information from banks, credit unions, and financial services organizations in Colorado and Wyoming. Information includes pay structure for work on Saturdays and temporary versus full-time teller rates as well as compensation for related jobs. Casino – collects compensation data for Colorado casinos. Pharma Group – includes shift differentials and turnover data as well as wage and salary data. Housing Authority/Property Management – collects the types of programs available and compensation information. Health Care Compensation – Summer – collects separate compensation data for hospital and clinic or physician practices settings.

Want to participate? If you would like to participate in any of the above surveys and have not received a questionnaire, please call the Surveys Department. You can also download the questionnaire from our website at MSEC.org. As always, it is the participation of our members that help make MSEC surveys the number one data source for the region. Thank you!

To request copies of the surveys, please contact the MSEC Surveys Department. Copies of these resources are available to authorized personnel of MSEC members. Call 800.884.1328, email surveys@msec.org, or go online to MSEC.org.

It Pays to Participate! Each participant in the Benchmark Compensation Surveys (Arizona, Colorado and, Wyoming) will receive a complimentary Custom Survey Analysis (CSA) at the conclusion of the survey process. The CSA will provide organizations with their job match averages compared to all organizations within their geographic demographic (i.e., Denver/Boulder). It will also display the percent differences for the weighted average and the interquartile: 25th - 50th - 75th percentiles. In addition, the CSA will show the quartile rank for each of the organization’s job matches: Rank 1 = < 25th percentile; Rank 2 = between 25th and 50th percentiles; Rank 3 = between 50th and 75th percentiles; and Rank 4 = > 75th percentile. Geographic Comparison Participation included 431 organizations—252 in Denver/Boulder, 51 in Northern Colorado, 61 in Southern Colorado, 32 in the Western Slope area, and 35 in Resort areas. In addition to the base salary reported for each of the 394 surveyed positions, data were also collected for: Annual Incentive – Participants were asked to provide annual incentives for the past fiscal/calendar year. Data reported are average incentives paid and number of employees receiving an incentive. Target Percent Incentive – Participants were asked to provide targeted percentage figures for additional compensation, not earned income for the current year. Exemption Status – Displays percentage of organizations reporting their matched position as exempt or nonexempt.

Survey Data Online Data are available in a PDF and spreadsheet format displaying each reported position by geographic region, employment size, and industry type. This combined report allows users to see all data breakouts in one document. A hard copy of the Colorado Benchmark Compensation Survey is available by geographic region. To request a copy, please contact the MSEC Surveys Department at 800.884.1328 or 303.303.223.5490 or by email at surveys@msec.org. Pay and Pay Structure Increase Projections Online 2013 pay and pay structure increases are available, as well as 2014 projections. They can be accessed online on the surveys page through the MSEC website at MSEC.org. The 2014 projections will also be updated in the 2013 Planning Packet Survey published in September.

The Bulletin

July 2013

MSEC.org

Unemployment Rate DENVER-AURORABROOMFIELD MSA

COLORADO

Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

3/13 EN 7.2% / 8.5%

3/13 DN 7.3% / 8.6%

WEEKLY HOURS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

3/13 N 41.0 / 38.9

HOURLY EARNINGS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

3/13 N 28.21 / 27.63

Figures reported for Denver, Colorado and U.S. are from the Current Population Survey [Federal Method]

PHOENIX-MESAGLENDALE, AZ

ARIZONA

WYOMING

UNITED STATES

3/13 EN 6.7% / 7.3%

3/13 DN 7.8% / 8.2%

3/13 DN 5.4% / 6.1%

4/13 A 7.5% / 8.1%

3/13 N 37.9 / 37.4

3/13 N 40.3 / 41.1

3/13 N 40.7 / 41.1

3/13 N 34.9 / 40.4

4/13 AP 41.7 / 41.7

3/13 N 25.55 / 24.58

3/13 N 19.07 / 18.71

3/13 N 18.69 / 17.84

3/13 N 22.14 / 22.88

4/13 AP 19.24 / 19.08

(CPI) Consumer Price Index DENVER, CO

PHOENIX-MESA, AZ

U.S.

1982-84 = 100

DEC. 2001 = 100

1982-84 = 100

Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jul-Dec 2012 N 216.8 / 212.0 +2.3%

Jul-Dec 2012 N 123.9 / 122.4 +1.2%

4/13 A 227.7 / 225.6 +0.9%

CPI-U* All Urban Consumers Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jul-Dec 2012 N 226.2 / 221.5 +2.1%

Jul-Dec 2012 N 124.3 / 122.2 +1.7%

4/13 A 231.5 / 229.0 +1.1%

CPI-W* Revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners & Clerical Workers

(ECI) Employment Cost Index

Private Industry Workers Manufacturing Service-providing Industries** Mountain Region*** State/Local Government Workers

WAGES & SALARIES

TOTAL COMP.

12 Months Ended

1/13 N

1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.7% 1.0%

1.7% 1.9% 1.6% 0.9% 1.9%

NOTE: Denver-Aurora MSA includes 10 counties: Denver, Arapahoe, Adams, Jefferson, Douglas, Broomfield, Elbert, Park, Clear Creek, and Gilpin. * CPI data for Wyoming is not available. ** Includes the following industries: wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing; utilities; information; finance and insurance; real estate, rental and leasing; professional; scientific and technical services; management of companies and enterprises; administrative support; waste management and remediation services; education services; health care and social assistance; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services, except public administration.

DEFINITIONS/SOURCES (1) P = N = A = D = E = R = C =

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor Preliminary Data Not Seasonally Adjusted Seasonally Adjusted Reflects revised population controls and model reestimation Reflects inputs, reestimations, and new statewide controls Revised Corrected

For more information: www.bls.gov *** Includes the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

The Bulletin

July 2013

MSEC.org

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID DENVER, COLORADO Permit No. 552

1799 Pennsylvania Street P.O. Box 539 Denver, Colorado 80201-0539 800.884.1328 303.839.5177

Our experts provide the services, products, and connections that solve your Employment Law, HR, Training, and Survey concerns . . .

With One Call!

SURVEYS

EMPLOYMENT LAW

HUMAN RESOURCES

TRAINING

MSEC workplace investigators conduct investigations with the knowledge and experience necessary for this important task.

Why Choose MSEC to Investigate for You? Objectivity A neutral, third-party investigator deflects bias claims.

Legal Expertise MSEC investigators are also employment law attorneys who recognize legal issues.

Experience MSEC investigators are practiced interviewers, skilled in the pursuit of relevant evidence and credibility assessment.