Work-related correlates of occupational sitting in a diverse sample of employees in Midwest metropolitan cities

The worksite serves as an ideal setting to reduce sedentary time. Yet little research has focused on occupational sitting, and few have considered factors beyond the personal or socio-demographic level. The current study i) examined variation in occupational sitting across different occupations, ii) explored whether worksite level factors (e.g., employer size, worksite supports and policies) may be associated with occupational sitting. Between 2012 and 2013, participants residing in four Missouri metropolitan areas were interviewed via telephone and provided information on socio-demographic characteristics, schedule flexibility, occupation, work related factors, and worksite supports and policies. Occupational sitting was self-reported (daily minutes spent sitting at work), and dichotomized. Occupation-stratified analyses were conducted to identify correlates of occupational sitting using multiple logistic regressions. A total of 1668 participants provided completed data. Those employed in business and office/administrative support spent more daily occupational sitting time (median 330 min) compared to service and blue collar employees (median 30 min). Few worksite supports and policies were sitting specific, yet factors such as having a full-time job, larger employer size, schedule flexibility, and stair prompt signage were associated with occupational sitting. For example, larger employer size was associated with higher occupational sitting in health care, education/professional, and service occupations. Work-related factors, worksite supports and policies are associated with occupational sitting. The pattern of association varies among different occupation groups. This exploratory work adds to the body of research on worksite level correlates of occupational sitting. This may provide information on priority venues for targeting highly sedentary occupation groups

WorkWell Missouri

Harvested from the University of Missouri Extension website."This work directly relates to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services' and University of Missouri Extension's missions to be leaders in working together for public health and in improving lives, communities and economies. This version of the toolkit focuses specifically on the current health needs of Missouri's workforce that can be addressed through updates and alterations to worksite policy, culture and environment. This revision process included significant input from several health-related organizations from throughout the state. References to additional resources are for informational purposes and are not an endorsement of organizations of products."--First page.Contributing Partners: American Heart Association, Audrain County Health Department, Cape Girardeau Area Chamber of Commerce, Cape Girardeau County Health Department, Freeman Health System - Joplin, Independence Health Department, Mercy Corporate Health and Wellness - Springfield, Mid-America Coalition on Health Care, Missouri Foundation for Health, Pettis County Health Department, St. Louis Area Business Health Coalition, Washington UniversityIncludes bibliographical reference

“Group Measurement” of NREGA work-- The Jalore Experiment

Rajasthan is seen as the forerunner with respect to the implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), both in terms of scale of works and transparency safeguards. This combination has meant that large numbers of people have benefited from the NREGA in the state. The scale of NREGA works in Rajasthan is impressive -- according to official statistics, in 2006-7 and 2007-8 Rajasthan generated 77 days and 68 days, respectively, of employment per rural household (in the districts where NREGA was in force), the highest in the country. More recently, there have been positive reports of Rajasthan’s efforts to improve worksite management. Proper worksite management is essential for at least three purpose -- ensuring good working conditions and the provision of mandatory worksite facilities ; implementing the transparency safeguards; providing technical supervision to ensure satisfactory labour productivity and asset creation. Related to effective worksite management, an important issue that has not been resolved yet is that often NREGA labourers in Rajasthan are not paid the statutory minimum wage. Low wages are commonly attributed to low productivity on worksites. This means that labourers do not (or are unable to) perform the “task” required to earn the minimum wage. There could be several reasons for this -- excessive productivity norms, confusion or lack of awareness regarding the task that must be performed to earn the minimum wage, poor worksite supervision arrangements, and poor work incentives related to the system of wage calculation. This brief note takes a closer look at an experiment of training mates (worksite supervisors) in Rajasthan to improve worksite management. It is based on a four-day field visit (11-14 February, 2008) to Jalore district where this experiment is said to have been a success. A team of three researchers visited nine ongoing worksites from two blocks of Jalore (Raniwara and Jalore) and two completed worksites. The Gram Panchayats (GPs) visited include Bakra Road (one worksite), Leta (two worksites), Oon (one worksite) and Sankarna (three worksites) in Jalore Block. For this Block we got a list of Gram Panchayats with ongoing works. From this list, we selected Bakra Road and Sankarna because they were served by buses and Leta and Oon because these were accessible by bicycle. The closest Gram Panchayat was Leta (6 km from Jalore district headquarters) and the furthest was Bakra Road (about 25 km away). We also visited two GPs in Raniwara Block on the recommendation of the District Collector and Block Development Officer.

Immigration-Related Worksite Enforcement: Performance Measures

[Excerpt] According to the estimates by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), some 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in 2012.1 The Pew Research Center’s unauthorized alien population estimate for 2012 was 11.2 million, which included some 8.1 million unauthorized workers in the U.S. civilian workforce.2 It is widely believed that most unauthorized aliens enter and remain in the United States in order to work. Six years ago, in 2009, DHS issued new guidance on immigration-related worksite enforcement—the enforcement of prohibitions on the employment of unauthorized aliens in the United States. In the words of DHS at the time, the 2009 guidance “reflects a renewed Department-wide focus targeting criminal aliens and employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the country’s laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers.”3 Under this guidance, promoting compliance also has taken on a larger role in DHS’s worksite enforcements efforts. Questions arise as to how rigorous and effective DHS’s worksite enforcement efforts are and have been in past years. The department maintains data on several measures that can be used to examine the performance of its worksite enforcement program. Enforcement activity by the Department of Labor (DOL) is also relevant to a discussion of federal efforts to address unauthorized employment. DOL, which is responsible for enforcing minimum wage, overtime pay, and related requirements, focuses a significant percentage of its enforcement resources on low-wage industries that employ large numbers of immigrant—and presumably large numbers of unauthorized—workers

Immigration-Related Worksite Enforcement: Performance Measures

[Excerpt] In the spring of 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued new guidance on immigration-related worksite enforcement—the enforcement of prohibitions on the employment of unauthorized aliens in the United States. In the words of DHS, the updated guidance “reflects a renewed Department-wide focus targeting criminal aliens and employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the country’s laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers.” According to 2008 estimates, there are some 8.3 million unauthorized workers in the U.S. civilian workforce. Questions arise as to how rigorous and effective DHS’s worksite enforcement efforts have been under the Obama Administration and in past years. The department maintains data on several measures that can be used to examine the performance of its worksite enforcement program. Enforcement activity by the Department of Labor (DOL) is also relevant to a discussion of federal efforts to address unauthorized employment. DOL, which is responsible for enforcing minimum wage, overtime pay, and related requirements, focuses a significant percentage of its enforcement resources on a group of low-wage industries that employ large numbers of immigrant—and presumably large numbers of unauthorized—workers

Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America's Children

Examines the immediate and long-term impact of worksite immigration raids on children with undocumented parents at three sites, including on their care, housing, economic hardship, and mental health, as well as community response. Makes recommendations

Immigration-Related Worksite Enforcement: Performance Measures

[Excerpt] Over the past few years, the media have been filled with reports about worksite enforcement operations, commonly referred to as immigration raids. These operations represent the public face of efforts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to curtail the employment of unauthorized immigrants (illegal aliens). According to 2006 estimates, there are some 7.8 million unauthorized workers in the U.S. civilian workforce. DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for Immigration-related worksite enforcement, or enforcement of the prohibitions on unauthorized employment in Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA §274A provisions, sometimes referred to as employer sanctions, make it unlawful for an employer to knowingly hire, recruit or refer for a fee, or continue to employ an alien who is not authorized to be so employed. Today, ICE’s worksite enforcement program is focused primarily on cases that involve critical infrastructure facilities and cases involving employers who commit “egregious violations” of criminal statutes and engage in worker exploitation. Employers who violate INA prohibitions on the unlawful employment of aliens may be subject to civil monetary penalties and/or criminal penalties. Criminal investigations may result in defendants being charged with crimes beyond unlawful employment and being subject to the relevant penalties for those violations. Various measures are available to examine the performance of ICE’s worksite enforcement program. They include Final Orders for civil monetary penalties, administrative fines, administrative arrests, criminal arrests, criminal indictments and convictions, and criminal fines and forfeitures. In recent years, ICE has generally focused less on administrative fines and more on administrative and criminal arrests, criminal prosecutions, and criminal fines and forfeitures. The data presented here show increases in these latter measures in recent years. At the same time, however, when considered in terms of the estimated size of the unauthorized workforce or the potential number of employers employing these workers in violation of the law, ICE’s worksite enforcement program can seem quite small. Enforcement activity by the Department of Labor (DOL) is also relevant to a discussion of federal efforts to curtail unauthorized employment. DOL, which is responsible for enforcing minimum wage, overtime pay, and related requirements, focuses a significant percentage of its enforcement resources on a group of low-wage industries that employ large numbers of immigrant—and presumably large numbers of unauthorized—workers. Related background information can be found in CRS Report RL33973, Unauthorized Employment in the United States: Issues and Options, and a discussion of related legislation can be found in CRS Report RL34204, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 110th Congress. This report will be updated when new data become available

Illinois Work-Based Learning Programs: Worksite Mentor Knowledge and Training

Teacher-coordinators and worksite mentors of high school work-based learning programs throughout Illinois were the subjects of this study which described worksite mentors\u27 knowledge of teaching work skills to students participating in work-based learning programs and the nature of the training provided to these worksite mentors. There were no statistically significant differences in knowledge of teaching among worksite mentors based on attendance at training. Informal training was offered to worksite mentors most often to acquaint them with work-based learning program procedures. Worksite mentors who did not attend training stated it was not offered while those who attended formal training rated it highly

Examination of pre-diabetes and diabetes perceptions and knowledge using focus groups

A review of worksite interventions revealed the scarcity of worksite interventions for the prevention of chronic diseases for which research data has been collected. Pre-diabetes is a condition that has been identified as an emerging chronic disease threat which is deserving of immediate attention as it precedes type 2 diabetes and it is becoming more common in the United States. The number of individuals with pre-diabetes has been estimated to be 54 million. As the worksite setting provides easy access to a large adult population it was chosen for this research study. A thorough review of prior worksite interventions was conducted followed by a focus group study which used qualitative methods to evaluate health behaviors and diabetes knowledge of employees in a South Carolina textile worksite. The results indicated that future worksite interventions need to address all aspects of an individual\u27s lifestyle to be effective. Researchers will be able to use the results from this study to develop a tailored, diabetes prevention program that meets the specific needs of textile worksite employees in rural South Carolina