Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER November 30, 2015 4 HR BY THE NUMBERS Compiled by Liz Bernier - Source: Statistics Canada one-half Source: The Conference Board of Canada 30.07 Credit: Zffoto (Shutterstock) SPONSORED BY 44,000 Increase in employment in October, the first significant change in four months. 7% National unemployment rate in October, representing a slight decline. 143,000 Increase in national employment compared with 12 months earlier. 0.7% Increase in the average number of hours worked compared with 12 months earlier. 5% Unemployment rate for women aged 55 and older, representing a decline in October. 5.7% Unemployment rate for men aged 55 and older, also representing a decline in October. 29,000 Increase in employment in Ontario, the province with the greatest increase. 11,000 Decrease in employment in Alberta, the province with the greatest decline. 32,000 Increase in employment in public administration, which was related to the federal election. Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never been higher — employers are spending an average of Credit: Zffoto (Shutterstock) Credit: Zffoto (Shutterstock) Credit: Zffoto (Shutterstock) Credit: Zffoto (Shutterstock) Credit: Zffoto (Shutterstock) Credit: Zffoto (Shutterstock) Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never Despite cost-containment eff orts, spending on benefi ts has never been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of been higher — employers are spending an average of Benefits budget drain per full-time employee. More than one-half of organizations (52 per cent) reported increases in benefi ts costs for active employees, averaging 6.2 per cent between 2013 and 2014, according to a Canadian survey of 278 organizations. 92% of employers provide full-time employees vision care coverage. 96% cover private or semi-private hospital accommodation. 99% cover out-of-country medical coverage. 99% cover paramedical services like massage therapy, chiropractic coverage and physiotherapy. 98% cover major restorative dental services. Over the past three years, the percentage of employers off ering full-time employees critical illness insurance has increased from 26% to 35%. Credit: Flegere (Shutterstock) Hourly salary of a power line technician at Fortis in Calgary. at works out to an annual salary of $62,545, assuming a 40-hour work week. e wage rises in 11 steps to $50.09 or an annual salary of $104,187. ere is also a shift premium of $2.30 per hour for all hours worked between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. They earn what? Source: Canadian Labour Reporter/www.labour-reporter.com Credit: shockfactor.de (Shutterstock) The devil We've all heard the old maxim: "People quit bosses, not jobs." at's backed up by a survey of 1,525 Canadian workers that found nearly say "gas station zombie #3": is incompetent buff oon is clueless, ineff ective and unable to make a strategic decision. say Jekyll and Hyde: is boss says one thing and means the other, then gets angry when staff can't read her mind. say the Phantom of the Opera: is glory hog takes credit for anything and everything. say Cruella de Vil: is abusive tyrant is always yelling, and nothing is ever good enough. say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of trouble and nothing is ever his fault. say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action executive rarely answers emails or shows up at the offi ce. 27% 27% 23% 22% 21% 14% Source: Monster Canada (42 per cent) have left a job because of their boss. So who are the worst off enders? For 31% of employees, the worst type of boss is Jack Torrance from the Shining: An overbearing micro-manager who is constantly hovering and asking for status updates say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you say the werewolf: is boss is likely to throw you or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of or your team under the bus at the fi rst sign of trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. trouble and nothing is ever his fault. say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action say "the invisible man": is missing-in-action executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at executive rarely answers emails or shows up at the offi ce. the offi ce. the offi ce. the offi ce. the offi ce. the offi ce. 21% 21% 21% 21% 14% 14% 14% 14% Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Source: Monster Canada Engagement falls flat About 71 per cent of employers have employee engagement initiatives, but only 37 per cent believe they are actually working, according to an American survey of more than 300 companies. A company's employee communications strategy can have a big impact, according to 91 per cent of employers. How are employers promoting engagement? Training courses: Open door policies: 71% Flex time and telecommuting: 68% Reimbursement or paying for industry memberships: 61% Tuition reimbursement: 59% Employee assistance programs: 59% Source: theEMPLOYEEapp Credit: photofriday (Shutterstock)

• Cover