2012 Washington State Marine Industry Employment & Compensation Survey: Manufacturers, Repairers and Marine Systems
Candiya Mann
April 2013
Social & Economic Sciences Research Center-Puget Sound Division
203 E. 4th Avenue, Suite 521
P.O. Box 43170
Olympia, WA 98504-3170
(360) 586-9292
Fax: (360) 586-2279
Sponsorship
Support for this project was provided by the Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine Manufacturing and Technology at Skagit Valley College, Whidbey Island Campus (“the Center”), in collaboration with the Northwest Marine Trade Association (NMTA).
About SESRC
The Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) at Washington State University is a recognized leader in the development and conduct of survey research.
SESRC-Puget Sound Division provides technical services and consultation to assist clients in acquiring data, understanding what data means, and applying that information to solving problems. The SESRC Puget Sound Division specializes in research design, data collection and analysis, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The Division also provides interpretive reports, policy studies, presentations and consulting services directly to individual clients, organizations and consortia.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the management at the Center for their leadership, coordination, and helpful suggestions. We are also grateful to NMTA for their generous help in compiling the survey sample and publicizing the survey. Special thanks to Scott Bailey of the Washington Employment Security Department for conducting the data runs presented in the Industry Background section of the report. Finally, this project would not have been possible without the valuable insights contributed by the employers who participated in the survey.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Background and Methodology
Why an Employer Survey?
Comparison between Survey Results: 2007, 2009, 2012
Methodology
Survey Protocol Development
Sample Selection
Survey Administration
Response Rate
Company Characteristics
Company Size
Company Location
Primary Focus: Repair, Manufacturing and Marine Systems
Maximum Vessel Size
Results
Employment
Current Employment
Forecast Growth/Decline in Employment and Anticipated Retirements
Vacancies
Difficulty of Filling Vacancies
Union Membership
Median Hourly Wages
Employee Benefits
Percentage that Benefits Add to the Cost of Each Employee
401k Programs
Bonus/Profit Sharing Programs
Employee Stock Ownership Programs
Health Insurance
Paid Leave: Vacation, Sick Leave, Personal Time Off
Technology
Training
Types of Training Offered
Effectiveness of Training
Influence of Training on Hiring Decisions
Conclusions
Appendix A: Industry Background
Appendix B: Survey Protocol
Appendix C: 2007 Median Hourly Wages
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Key Occupations in the Survey: 2007, 2009, and 2012
Figure 2: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution by Company Size: Population and Survey Respondents
Figure 3: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Primary Focus (Repair/Manufacturing/Marine Systems) by Company Size
Figure 4: Map of Washington State Counties and Workforce Development Areas
Figure 5: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Company Location (WDA)
Figure 6: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Selected WDAs by Company Size
Figure 7: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Selected WDAs by Primary Focus (Manufacturing/Repair/Marine Systems)
Figure 8: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Primary Focus
Figure 9: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdowns by Maximum Vessel Size
Figure 10: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution of Employees among Key Occupations
Figure 11: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees
Figure 12: 2012-2014: Forecast Change in Employment and Anticipated Retirements
Figure 13: 2009 & 2012 Vacancy Rates by Occupation
Figure 14: 2012 Difficulty Filling Vacancies
Figure 15: 2009 Difficulty Filling Vacancies
Figure 16: 2012 Median Hourly Wages Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage
Figure 17: 2009 Median Hourly Wages by Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage
Figure 18: Comparisons of 2007, 2009 and 2012 Median Hourly Wages: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage
Figure 19: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Employer Size
Figure 20: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Primary Focus
Figure 21: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Selected WDA
Figure 22: Median Percentage that Benefits Add to the Cost of Each Employee by Primary Focus , Company Size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 23: 401k Programs: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 24: 2007-2012 Percentage of Companies Offering 401k Plans by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
Figure 25: Bonus or Profit Sharing Programs: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 26: Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 27: Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Primary Focus, Company size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 28: Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
Figure 29: Percentage of Health Insurance Premiums Covered by the Employee (Not Including Dependents) by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
Figure 30: Percentage of Companies Offering Paid Vacation by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 31: Percentage of Companies Offering Personal Time Off by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 32: Percentage of Companies Offering Sick Leave by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s
Figure 33: 2012 Percentage of Companies Offering Paid Vacation, PTO, and Sick Leave by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
Figure 34: 2012 Percentage of Companies Using Technology to Achieve Goals
Figure 35: Percentage of Companies Offering Each Type of Training
Figure 36: Among Companies Providing In-House Training, the Percentage Offering Each Type
Figure 37: Percentage of Companies that Ever Used State/Federal Workforce Development Funds or Other Public Funds to Assist in Training Needs
Figure 38: Ratings of Effectiveness of Each Type of Training
Figure 39: Percentage of Respondents Stating that Each Type of Training Greatly Affects Hiring Decisions
Figure 40: On the Job Training: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation
Figure 41: Factory Training: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation
Figure 42: CTC Training Programs: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation
Figure 43: Training from Non-Profit Organizations (ABYC, AMTECH, etc.): Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation
Figure 44: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Payroll: 1990-2011
Figure 45: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Total Employment: 1990-2008
Figure 46: Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry, Percent Change in Number of Companies 2008-2011 by Company Size
Figure 47: 2007 Median Hourly Wages Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
Executive Summary
2012 Washington State Marine Industry Employment & Compensation Survey: Manufacturers, Repairers and Marine Systems
By: Candiya Mann
Social & Economic Sciences Research Center, Puget Sound Office
Washington State University
April 2013
Every two to three years, the Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine Manufacturing and Technology at Skagit Valley College commissions a web survey of boat and ship manufacturers and repairers in Washington State. The initial survey took place in 2007; the second survey was in 2009, and this report presents the results of the 2012 survey.
The primary purpose of this survey is to gain a better understanding of trends in employment and compensation within this specific region and industry. The survey covers current employment and vacancies, forecasted employment and retirements, wages, employment benefits, and training. Within these topics, survey questions focus on 13 key hourly occupations.[1]
In 2012, the survey was expanded to include companies focused on marine systems in addition to manufacturers and repairers. Survey results were analyzed by primary company focus (manufacturing/repair/marine systems), company size (number of employees), and location (selected Workforce Development Areas).
Employers contributed information through a web survey in April and May of 2012. The response rate was 45%, with 113 surveys completed. The very small employers were under-represented in the respondents. To correct this, the statistical results were weighted by company size so that the reported results more accurately represent the entire industry.
The 2012 survey results paint the picture of an industry in flux after the dramatic downturn in the economy. Between 2009 and 2012, the recession affected most of the topics covered by this survey. Specific findings highlighting the difficulties faced by the industry include the following:
- According to the Washington State Employment Security Department, employment in this industry declined by 44% between 2008 and 2010. The increase of 4% in 2011 may signal that the industry has begun to recover from the downturn.
- According to the 2012 survey, employers remained pessimistic in their employment forecasts, expecting continued declines.
- The vacancy rate increased between the 2009 and 2012 surveys and filling vacancies has become more difficult.
- Median hourly wages declined for half of the key occupations in the survey and increased for the other half.
- Fewer companies offered employment benefits.
These findings are explored in further detail below.
Employment
The survey explored the number of employees at the time of the survey, the predicted change in employment by occupation over the next two years (2012-2014), anticipated retirements in the same time period, vacancies, and union membership.
- Staffing: Over half the employees worked for an organization focused on repair (57%); 19% worked for a manufacturer; 18% worked for a company focused on marine systems; and 5% worked for a company with another primary focus. Most of the employees worked full-time (96%).
- Forecast Employment & Retirements: Employers were pessimistic in their employment forecasts, expecting continued declines of 9.2%. This would mean a net loss of incumbent workers, even after the 4.9% expected retirement is taken into consideration.
- Vacancies: The vacancy rate increased between the two surveys, from 5.5% in 2009 to 8.2% in 2012. Consistent with this finding, employers indicated that filling vacancies became more difficult in 2012.
- Unionization: Union membership was not common among the respondents in any of the surveys. In 2012, employees were union members at less than 10% of the companies that employed each occupation.
Median Hourly Wages
Respondents provided the average hourly wage for each key occupation at the entry level, with five years of experience, and at the maximum potential wage.
- Change in Wages: The change in wages from 2009 to 2012 was mixed, depending on the occupation. Inflation-adjusted median hourly wages increased for half of the occupations and decreased for the other half.
- Highest and Lowest Paid Occupations:In general, the highest paid occupations were marine electricians, marine mechanics, Fiberglas technicians – open, painters, electronics technicians, and CAD technicians, all with maximum potential wages of at least $25.00 per hour.[2] The occupations with the lowest wages were aluminum welders, assemblers, riggers, and patch and repair.
- Potential Earnings Growth within Occupations:Marine electricians generally saw the most growth between their entry-level and maximum potential wages. Their maximum wages of $32.00 per hour were more than double the entry-level wages of $15.00 per hour. The occupations with the least potential wage growth were steel welders and aluminum welders, with $5.00 or less difference between the entry-level and maximum potential wages.
Employment Benefits
The survey covered a variety of topics regarding wages and benefits, including profit sharing, stock options, 401k programs, health insurance, and paid leave (vacation, sick leave, and personal time off).
- The Cost of Employment Benefits: Employment benefits added a median of 15% to the cost of each employee in 2012, down from 20% in 2009. As in the prior surveys, medium and large companies offered the most comprehensive benefits, which also cost the most, adding between 20% and 31% to the cost of each employee in 2012.
- 401k Programs: Thirty-six percent (36%) of the respondents offered a 401k retirement program, and close to 41% of those with a 401k program matched employees’ contributions. This is down from 2007 and 2009, when 41% of the employers offered 401k programs.
- Bonus/Profit Sharing: Bonuses and profit sharing programs became less common in 2012. While 39% of the employers offered bonuses or profit sharing in 2009, 30% did so in 2012.
- Employee Stock Option Programs: Unlike the declines in the other employment benefits included in the survey, employee stock ownership plans (ESOP’s) became more common in 2012 (2012: 9%, 2009: 2%), possibly because of the inclusion of marine systems companies, which were the most likely to offer these programs (marine systems: 25%, manufacturers: 9%, repairers: 0%).
- Health Insurance: The majority of companies offered health insurance to their employees, though the proportion of companies providing health insurance declined from 88% in 2009 to 69% in 2012.The proportion of health insurance that employees paid for themselves (not including dependents) averaged 9% in 2012, down from 17% in 2009. Unlike prior surveys, in 2012 it appears that marine employers were less likely to offer health insurance coverage than employers in other industries in Washington; however, among marine employers who provided health insurance, they covered a higher proportion of the premium than other employers.
- Paid Leave: Over three-quarters of the companies offered paid vacation (77%), and over half provided Personal Time Off (53%) and/or paid sick leave (53%). The number of hours of paid leave offered by survey respondents varied widely.
Technology
In 2012, the survey began to address the topic of how employers use technology. Technology was widely used among employers to upgrade employees’ skills (84%), improve efficiency (75%), improve safety (52%), and create new product lines (28%). Employers also reported that changing technology has provided for improved accounting, inventory control, routing, and communication. They also noted that the internet has led to a better informed clientele, leading to higher expectations of sales staff.
Employee Training
The survey included a series of questions on the subject of employee training, covering the following topics: types of training offered, public funds for training, ratings of effectiveness of different sources of training, and the influence of training on hiring.
- Types of Training Offered: Respondents were asked which types of training they have offered; this included covering the cost of training or providing time off for training. Two-thirds of the respondents provided on-the-job training (OJT, 68%). Close to half (46%) provided support for their employees to receive training from factory schools. Forty-one percent (41%) offered another form of in-house training, aside from OJT. Twenty-one percent (21%) supported their employees receiving training from non-profit organizations, such as the American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC), Association of Marine Technicians (AMTECH), or American Boat Builders & Repairers Association (ABBRA). Seventeen percent (17%) supported training through community and technical college (CTC) programs. Fourteen percent (14%) of the respondents had not provided any employee training.
Among the companies providing in-house training, many offered more than one type of training. Over half of these companies offered self-directed training through the internet and/or CDs. Over one-third provided an on-site classroom with instructors. Over one-quarter of the companies with in-house training offered self-directed training using paper materials. - Public Funds for Training: It was rare for companies to use state or federal workforce development funds or other public funds for their training (7%).
- Effectiveness of Training: Survey respondents rated each type of training on a scale of “very effective”, “somewhat effective”, and “not at all effective”. OJT was the most highly rated type of training, with 84%of the respondents indicating that it was very effective. Over two-thirds of the employers gave a “very effective” rating to factory training. Over one-third of the employers rated in-house training other than OJT as very effective. Opinions were split about training from CTCs and non-profit organizations. Half rated training from CTCs as very effective (50%), and 16% stated that it was not at all effective. Among those rating the non-profits, roughly one-quarter (24%) indicated that their training was very effective, and 15% gave their training a rating of not at all effective.
- Influence of Training on Hiring Decisions: Overall, it is clear that OJT was the most influential type of training in hiring decisions. OJT was the highest rated type of training for all but three occupations. Ratings of the influence of the other three types of training on hiring decisions varied quite a bit depending upon the occupation.
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation1
Background and Methodology
The Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine Manufacturing and Technology at Skagit Valley College (“the Center”) serves as a resource hub for industry trends, best practices, innovative curriculum, and professional development for the boat and ship building, repair and refit industries of Washington State. The Center’s mission is to maximize resources by bringing together economic, workforce, education and industry partners in order to develop highly skilled employees and increase the competitiveness of these Washington State industries.
Every two to three years, the Center commissions a web survey of boat and ship manufacturers and repairers in Washington State. The initial survey took place in 2007, and the second survey was administered in 2009. This report presents the results of the 2012 survey. The next round is scheduled for 2014. The Social and Economic Sciences Research Center at Washington State University designed and conducted these surveys.
The purpose of the survey is to create a detailed database of regionally specific economic and workforce information for this industry. The results are shared with employers, educators, and economic and workforce development professionals.
The main topics covered are current and projected employment – including vacancies and forecasted retirements – and wages and benefits. Beginning in 2009, the survey also covered employee training.