NW Marine Center of Excellence - A Guide To …€¦ · Web viewSupport for this project was provided by the Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine Manufacturing and Technology

2012 Washington State Marine Industry Employment &

Compensation Survey: Manufacturers, Repairers and

Marine Systems

April 2013

Submitted by:

SESRCSocial & Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC)

Puget Sound DivisionWashington State University

PO Box 43170Olympia, Washington 98504-3170

Telephone: (360) 586-9292Fax: (360) 586-2279

www.sesrc.wsu.edu/PugetSound

[email protected]

2012 Washington State Marine Industry Employment & Compensation Survey:

Manufacturers, Repairers and Marine Systems

Candiya Mann

April 2013

Social & Economic Sciences Research Center-Puget Sound Division203 E. 4th Avenue, Suite 521

P.O. Box 43170Olympia, WA 98504-3170

(360) 586-9292Fax: (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.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... i

Background and Methodology.......................................................................................................1

Why an Employer Survey?.....................................................................................................2

Comparison between Survey Results: 2007, 2009, 2012.......................................................3

Methodology..............................................................................................................................4

Survey Protocol Development...............................................................................................4

Sample Selection....................................................................................................................5

Survey Administration............................................................................................................5

Response Rate........................................................................................................................5

Company Characteristics............................................................................................................6

Company Size.........................................................................................................................6

Company Location.................................................................................................................9

Primary Focus: Repair, Manufacturing and Marine Systems................................................12

Maximum Vessel Size...........................................................................................................13

Results..........................................................................................................................................14

Employment.............................................................................................................................14

Current Employment............................................................................................................14

Forecast Growth/Decline in Employment and Anticipated Retirements.............................17

Vacancies.............................................................................................................................19

Difficulty of Filling Vacancies................................................................................................21

Union Membership..............................................................................................................23

Median Hourly Wages..........................................................................................................23


Employee Benefits....................................................................................................................32

Percentage that Benefits Add to the Cost of Each Employee...............................................32

401k Programs.....................................................................................................................33

Bonus/Profit Sharing Programs............................................................................................35

Employee Stock Ownership Programs.................................................................................36

Health Insurance..................................................................................................................37

Paid Leave: Vacation, Sick Leave, Personal Time Off............................................................40

Technology...............................................................................................................................44

Training....................................................................................................................................45

Types of Training Offered.....................................................................................................45

Effectiveness of Training......................................................................................................47

Influence of Training on Hiring Decisions.............................................................................48

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................53

Appendix A: Industry Background................................................................................................54

Appendix B: Survey Protocol........................................................................................................57

Appendix C: 2007 Median Hourly Wages.....................................................................................73


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Key Occupations in the Survey: 2007, 2009, and 2012...................................................4

Figure 2: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution by Company Size: Population and Survey Respondents...................................................................................................................................7

Figure 3: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Primary Focus (Repair/Manufacturing/Marine Systems) by Company Size.................................................................................................................................8

Figure 4: Map of Washington State Counties and Workforce Development Areas.......................9

Figure 5: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Company Location (WDA)...................................10

Figure 6: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Selected WDAs by Company Size................................................11

Figure 7: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Selected WDAs by Primary Focus (Manufacturing/Repair/Marine Systems).......................................................................................................................................11

Figure 8: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Primary Focus.....................................................12

Figure 9: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdowns by Maximum Vessel Size........................................13

Figure 10: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution of Employees among Key Occupations.................16

Figure 11: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees.................17

Figure 12: 2012-2014: Forecast Change in Employment and Anticipated Retirements..............19

Figure 13: 2009 & 2012 Vacancy Rates by Occupation................................................................20

Figure 14: 2012 Difficulty Filling Vacancies..................................................................................22

Figure 15: 2009 Difficulty Filling Vacancies..................................................................................22

Figure 16: 2012 Median Hourly Wages Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage............................................................................................................24

Figure 17: 2009 Median Hourly Wages by Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage.....................................................................................................25

Figure 18: Comparisons of 2007, 2009 and 2012 Median Hourly Wages: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage........................................................................27


Figure 19: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Employer Size.............................................................28

Figure 20: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Primary Focus.............................................................30

Figure 21: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Selected WDA............................................................31

Figure 22: Median Percentage that Benefits Add to the Cost of Each Employee by Primary Focus , Company Size, and Selected WDA’s............................................................................................32

Figure 23: 401k Programs: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s.............................................................................................33

Figure 24: 2007-2012 Percentage of Companies Offering 401k Plans by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries.............................................................................................34

Figure 25: Bonus or Profit Sharing Programs: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s.....................................................................35

Figure 26: Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s.....................................................................36

Figure 27: Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Primary Focus, Company size, and Selected WDA’s......................................................................................................................37

Figure 28: Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries.............................................................................................38

Figure 29: Percentage of Health Insurance Premiums Covered by the Employee (Not Including Dependents) by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries..............................39

Figure 30: Percentage of Companies Offering Paid Vacation by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s......................................................................................................................42

Figure 31: Percentage of Companies Offering Personal Time Off by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s.............................................................................................................42

Figure 32: Percentage of Companies Offering Sick Leave by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s............................................................................................................................43

Figure 33: 2012 Percentage of Companies Offering Paid Vacation, PTO, and Sick Leave by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries........................................................43

Figure 34: 2012 Percentage of Companies Using Technology to Achieve Goals..........................44

Figure 35: Percentage of Companies Offering Each Type of Training..........................................45

Figure 36: Among Companies Providing In-House Training, the Percentage Offering Each Type 46


Figure 37: Percentage of Companies that Ever Used State/Federal Workforce Development Funds or Other Public Funds to Assist in Training Needs..............................................................46

Figure 38: Ratings of Effectiveness of Each Type of Training.......................................................47

Figure 39: Percentage of Respondents Stating that Each Type of Training Greatly Affects Hiring Decisions.......................................................................................................................................50

Figure 40: On the Job Training: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation.................................50

Figure 41: Factory Training: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation.......................................51

Figure 42: CTC Training Programs: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation............................51

Figure 43: Training from Non-Profit Organizations (ABYC, AMTECH, etc.): Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation...............................................................................................................52

Figure 44: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Payroll: 1990-2011.........55

Figure 45: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Total Employment: 1990-2008..............................................................................................................................................56

Figure 46: Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry, Percent Change in Number of Companies 2008-2011 by Company Size....................................................................56

Figure 47: 2007 Median Hourly Wages Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage............................................................................................................73


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2012 Washington State Marine Industry Employment & Compensation Survey: Manufacturers, Repairers and Marine SystemsBY: 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:

1 The key occupations in the 2012 survey were marine carpenters, marine electricians, marine mechanics, aluminum welders, steel welders, Fiberglas technicians – closed molded, Fiberglas technicians – open molded, riggers, assemblers, patch and repair, painters, electronics technicians and CAD technicians.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation i

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.

1. 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%).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation ii

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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).

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

2 In the 2007 and 2009 surveys, marine carpenter was among the highest paid occupations. In the 2012 survey, no employers provided 5-year or maximum wages for this occupation; however, marine carpenters had the highest entry-level wage, tied only with CAD technicians. It is likely that marine carpenter remains one of the highest paid occupations in 2012.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation iii

4. 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%).

5. 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.

6. 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.

1. 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.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation iv

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.

2. 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%).

3. 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.

4. 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 Compensation v

BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGYThe 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.

Within these topics, the survey focuses on 13 key hourly occupations. Survey results have been analyzed to see if they vary by additional factors, including the following:

Primary company focus (manufacturing/repair/marine systems),

Company size (number of employees), and

Location (selected Workforce Development Areas).

Comparisons between the 2007, 2009 and 2012 surveys are provided in this report.

Future research may explore the industry with more breadth (i.e. soliciting information about a wider range of occupations) and more depth (i.e. examining specific skill levels within an occupation). Other areas of interest for future study include exploring education and skill sets, subcontracting trends, vertical integration within the industry, and how the regional industry fits into the global economy.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation vi

WHY AN EMPLOYER SURVEY?

While general information about the industry is available through other sources, there are definite advantages to gathering information directly from employers:

More precise industry definition: The survey sample can be finely tuned to include most employers who build and/or repair ships and boats. Available state-level data must be designated by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and there is no single code that encompasses this specific set of employers. While most of the businesses in the construction and repair of boats and ships fall in the same NAICS codes, there are some, such as marinas and boat dealers, which are in different NAICS classifications.

Occupational data within industry: The survey data can be broken down by occupation within this particular set of employers. Standard statewide data is available by occupation or industry. For instance, wage data is provided for carpenters or for the marine industry but not specifically for marine carpenters who work for boat and ship builders and repairers.

Employer forecasting: Employment forecasts are based on employers’ estimations, rather than historical trends.

More detailed data: The survey allows for the collection of more detail than is available in standard statewide data, such as wages at the entry level, with five years experience, and the maximum potential wage.

Flexibility in survey topics: An additional benefit to conducting an employer survey of employment and compensation is the ability to add questions about related topics, such as training.

The downside to collecting information via an employer survey is that the results may represent only the respondents who elect to participate. In general, the first step in analyzing survey results is to compare the demographics of the respondents with the entire population of employers. If the respondents resemble the population, the survey results can be generalized to the population at large.

In all three surveys, the respondents were not perfectly representative of the industry as a whole: the very small employers were under-represented. This is not surprising since smaller companies may have less time to spend responding to surveys. To correct this, the statistical results were weighted by company size so that the reported results more accurately represent the industry as a whole.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation vii

COMPARISON BETWEEN SURVEY RESULTS: 2007, 2009, 2012

This report presents the 2007, 2009, and 2012 survey results. One of the intrinsic values of conducting multiple iterations of a survey is the ability to compare results over time. While all possible efforts were made to ensure that comparisons between the two surveys were valid and reliable, such as weighting the data and inflation-adjusting the 2007 and 2009 wages, it is important to understand the limitations of the results as well. This comparison should be handled with care, keeping the following cautions in mind:

Each survey collects data at a specific point in time, creating a “snapshot” of industry conditions as they are then perceived. Thus, differences between the surveys could be caused by a wide variety of factors that may not indicate long-term or permanent shifts in the industry. For instance, if a large company receives a large contract shortly before the survey, this may appear in the results as an increase in employment, though it may be reflective of a short-term increase rather than long-term, industry-wide growth.

While many of the responding companies were the same in the three surveys, the samples are not identical. Differences in the respondents can cause some variation in the results, though weighting the results minimizes this effect. (Additionally, with the downturn in the economy, some respondents of the prior surveys went out of business; therefore, some of the change in respondents was a legitimate reflection of changes in the industry.) An additional change in the sample for the 2012 survey was the inclusion of companies focused on marine systems.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation viii

Methodology

SURVEY PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT

The 2007 survey protocol was used as the base for the 2009 and 2012 surveys. The 2007 survey was designed through collaboration with the Center and extensive review by an advisory committee, consisting of representatives from Nordic Tug, Cap Sante Marine, U.S. Marine, the Northwest Marine Trade Association (NMTA), the state department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) and the Northwest Workforce Development Council. The advisory committee represented marine manufacturers and repairers of all sizes.

In 2012, two additional occupations were included in the survey, electronics technician and CAD technician, bringing the total number of occupations to 13.

Figure 1: Key Occupations in the Survey: 2007, 2009, and 2012

2007 Occupations 2009 Occupations 2012 Occupations1. Marine Carpenters 1. Marine Carpenters 1. Marine Carpenters2. Marine Electricians 2. Marine Electricians 2. Marine Electricians3. Marine Mechanics 3. Marine Mechanics 3. Marine Mechanics

4. Welders4. Steel Welders 4. Steel Welders5. Aluminum Welders 5. Aluminum Welders

6. Fiberglas Laminators

6. Fiberglas Technicians Closed Molded

6. Fiberglas Technicians Closed Molded

7. Fiberglas Technicians Open Molded

7. Fiberglas Technicians Open Molded

8. Composite Laminators NA (Removed) NA

9. Riggers 8. Riggers 8. Riggers10. Assemblers 9. Assemblers 9. Assemblers11. Patch and Repair 10. Patch and Repair 10. Patch and Repair12. Painters 11. Painters 11. Painters

12. Electronics Technician13. CAD Technician

Survey instructions requested that respondents classify each employee in one primary occupation only, despite the fact that a single employee may perform duties in multiple categories.3 The survey also directed respondents to include all employees who work in that category, regardless of skill level. For wage questions, this would mean averaging the wages across all skill levels. Finally, the survey

3 No specific instructions were provided on how to select an employee’s primary occupation.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation ix

acknowledged that this list of occupations is not comprehensive and requested that respondents exclude information about employees outside of these categories.

The 2013 survey was expanded to include companies focusing on marine systems, in addition to boat and ship manufacturers and repairers.

SAMPLE SELECTION

The survey attempted to contact all marine manufacturers and repairers with employees in the key occupations in Washington State. The Center and NMTA compiled the list of potential respondents, which contained 298 companies, 286 with email addresses. A single recipient was designated at each company, most often the company owner, manager, or human resources representative.

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

Data was gathered through an online survey. In order to maximize employer participation in the survey, the Center and NMTA notified their respective workgroups and constituents about the survey and encouraged participation.

The survey launched on April 5, 2012, and remained open through May 9, 2012. Respondents received an email invitation to participate that included the link to access the survey website. They were able to save their work on the survey and complete it in multiple sessions. However, after the final “submit” button was selected, they were locked out of the survey. The invitation emails were successfully emailed to 266 companies.

Reminder emails were sent on April 11, April 18, April 25, and May 2, 2012, to all respondents who had not pressed the final “submit” button as of those dates.

RESPONSE RATE

Of the 286 companies with email addresses, invitation emails were successfully delivered to 266. After the survey launch, 16 companies opted to be removed from the list of potential respondents, leaving a pool of 250 potential respondents.

One-hundred thirteen (113) respondents either partially or fully completed the web survey, for a response rate of 45%. This is an improvement over the response rates of the 2009 survey (31%) and 2007 survey (22%). The increased response rate may be due to the increased frequency of reminder emails, as well as improvements in the list of potential respondents.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation x

Company CharacteristicsIn addition to employment and compensation data, the survey also collected basic descriptive information about these companies, including company size, location, primary focus (manufacturing/repair/marine systems) and the hull size of the largest boat or ship with which they work.

COMPANY SIZE

For survey analysis, the employers were assigned to four different company size categories, according to their number of employees:

Very small: one to nine employees

Small: 10 to 19 employees

Medium: 20-49 employees

Large: 50 or more employees

The break points for these categories match those used by the Washington State Employment Security Department, facilitating easier comparison with their data.

This is an industry with a preponderance of very small companies, to an even greater extent since the economic slowdown hit this industry after 2009. In 2007 and 2009, roughly two-thirds of the industry (66%) and 40% of the survey respondents fit the “very small” category. In 2012, this increased to encompass close to three-quarters of the industry (73%) and half of the respondents (48%).4 The companies responding to the survey ranged in size from 1 to 850 employees, with a median size of 9.5 6 7

4 The respondent data presented here is not weighted. After weighting, it represents the same breakdowns as the population data. The remainder of the data presented in this report is weighted. 5 The median is one way to report the “average” of a set of numbers; specifically, it is the value where half the cases fall below it, and half are above.6 Data on company size for the overall population of companies in this industry was supplied by the Washington State Employment Security Department and represents NAICS 336612 and part of NAICS 811490. The most recent ESD data available at the time of the survey was 2011. 7 Three (3) companies with no employees responded to the survey, and 12 companies did not provide the number of employees. They were removed from the analysis.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xi

Figure 2: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution by Company Size: Population and Survey Respondents

67%

37%

66%

40%

73%

48%

12%

21%

13%

22%

13%

27%

13%

19%

13%

24%

10%18%

9%24%

8% 15%4% 8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Popula tion Unweighted Survey

Respondents

Population Unweighted Survey

Respondents

Popula tion Unweighted Survey

Respondents

2007 2009 2012

2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution by Company Size: Population and Survey Respondents

50+ employees

20 to 49 employees

10 to 19 employees

1 to 9 employees

In 2007 and 2009, companies that primarily focused on repair tended to be smaller than the manufacturers. In 2009, for instance, 80% of the repairers were very small, compared to 57% of the manufacturers.

In 2012, this trend reversed, and the manufacturers were smaller than the repairers; 80% of the manufacturers were very small, compared to 66% of the repairers. Companies focusing on marine systems were the smallest, with 96% of the companies in the “very small” or “small” categories.

Over time, the most striking trend has been the decline in size of manufacturing firms. In 2007, almost one-third of the manufacturers (30%) were large, with at least 50 employees. By 2009, only 11% of the manufacturers were large, and in 2012, this proportion had shrunk to 6%.

In contrast, the size of many repairer firms grew between 2009 and 2012. The proportion of very small repairers declined, while the categories of small and medium increased. Large repairers were still relatively rare, with only 4% of the repairers in both 2009 and 2012 employing at least 50 employees.

This trend is logical when the downturn in the economy is taken into consideration, along with the many reports in the media of consumers repairing goods rather than purchasing new items.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xii

Figure 3: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Primary Focus (Repair/Manufacturing/Marine Systems) by Company Size

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xiii

COMPANY LOCATION

For economic analysis, Washington State is often divided into 12 Workforce Development Areas (WDA’s). This enables regional comparisons without going into the minutia of comparing all 39 counties.

Figure 4: Map of Washington State Counties and Workforce Development Areas8

Counties WDA Code WDA Name

Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap 01 Olympic ConsortiumGrays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Thurston 02 Pacific Mountain WDAIsland, San Juan, Skagit, Whatcom 03 Northwest WDASnohomish 04 Snohomish County WDAKing 05 Seattle-King County WDAPierce 06 Pierce County WDAClark, Cowlitz, Skamania, Wahkiakum 07 Southwest Washington WDAAdams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Okanogan 08 North Central WDAKittitas, Klickitat, Yakima 09 Tri-County WDAAsotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Lincoln, 10 Eastern Washington WDAPend Oreille, Stevens, Walla Walla, WhitmanBenton, Franklin 11 Benton-Franklin WDASpokane 12 Spokane WDA

8 Spokane County Workforce Development Area, Summary and Definitions, Workforce Explorer Washington, Labor Market and Economic Analysis, Washington State Employment Security Department, http://www.workforceexplorer.com/article.asp?ARTICLEID=5564, accessed 7 August 2009.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xiv

http://www.workforceexplorer.com/article.asp?ARTICLEID=5564

In all three surveys, the Workforce Development Areas (WDA’s) with the most companies in this industry were King (37% in 2012), Northwest (24%), Snohomish (14%), and the Olympic Consortium (8%). As a general trend, the percentage of companies in the King WDA has decreased slightly over time (from 42% to 37%), while the percentage in the Northwest WDA has grown (from 17% to 24%).

Figure 5: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Company Location (WDA)

Breakdowns of the survey results are provided in the remainder of the report for the three WDA’s that were presented in the prior survey results: King, Northwest, and the combined WDA’s of Olympic/Pacific Mountain. These three WDA’s were fairly similar in 2012. The main difference between the three was that the Northwest WDA was more heavily based in manufacturing than the other two areas.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xv

Figure 6: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Selected WDAs by Company Size9

Figure 7: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Selected WDAs by Primary Focus (Manufacturing/Repair/Marine Systems)

9 It is unclear why the proportion of very small employers in the Olympic/Pacific Mountain WDA declined by 40 percentage points between the 2007 and 2009 surveys. This is likely due to small companies going out of business or downsizing to the point that they did not have the personnel available to complete the survey.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xvi

PRIMARY FOCUS: REPAIR, MANUFACTURING AND MARINE SYSTEMS

Respondents were asked whether their primary focus was marine repair, manufacturing, marine systems or something else. “Marine systems” was a new option in the 2012 survey. The expansion of the sample to include companies with a focus on marine systems complicated the analysis of trends across the three surveys. Thus, the analysis here focuses on 2012 only.

In 2012… Over one-third of the companies (37%) primarily focused on repair.

o Of the repairers, 11% also did manufacturing work. Over one-quarter of the companies (28%) primarily focused on manufacturing.

o As in prior surveys, many of the manufacturers (44%) also did repair work. Close to one-quarter (23%) identified marine systems as their primary focus. Several of these

respondents wrote additional detail on their company’s focus, including the following: o Design/manufacturing of marina float systemso Diesel power, i.e. marine engines, generator sets, auxiliary power unitso Systems installations, woodwork

Thirteen percent (13%) had a different primary focus, such as marine construction, retail sales, moorage, boat dealership

Figure 8: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Primary Focus

22%

42%

28%

63%

49%

37%

23%14%

9%13%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2007 Survey 2009 Survey 2012 Survey

*New response option in 2012

2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Primary Focus

Manufacturing

Repair

Marine Systems*

Other

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xvii

MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE

In the 2012 survey, only about half of the respondents provided information about the maximum length of the vessels their company works on. Many probably skipped the question because it does not apply to them, including the companies focused on marine systems. Of the companies that answered the question, 10% manufactured or repaired vessels with a maximum hull size of up to 25 feet. Thirty-seven percent (37%) worked on vessels with a maximum length of 26 to 49 feet. One-quarter (25%) worked on vessels with a maximum size of 50 to 99 feet. Twenty-eight percent (28%) worked with vessels with a maximum size of 100 feet or more.

Figure 9: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdowns by Maximum Vessel Size

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xviii

RESULTSThe survey results are presented in the following four chapters:

Employment: Current employment, projected employment, vacancy rates, difficulty of filling vacancies, anticipated retirements, unionization.

Wages: Median hourly wage at the entry level, with five years experience, and the maximum potential wage.

Employment Benefits: Percentage that employment benefits add to the cost of each employee, bonus/profit sharing, employee stock option programs, 401k programs, health insurance, paid vacation time, sick leave, personal time off.

Technology: How employers use technology.

Training: Types of training offered, use of public funds for training, effectiveness of different training sources, influence of training in hiring.

Breakdowns are provided by occupation, primary company focus, company size, and selected regions of the state.

EmploymentThis survey collected information about the current number of employees, the predicted change in employment by occupation over the next two years, current vacancies, the difficulty of filling vacancies, anticipated retirements, and unionization. Each of these topics is addressed below.

CURRENT EMPLOYMENT

This survey question asked respondents to report how many full-time and part-time employees they had in each of the key occupations. The numbers below provide a snapshot of employment at the time of the survey. As with the other results in this report, the numbers have been weighted to represent employment in the industry as a whole in 2007, 2009 and 2012.

Among the key occupations in the 2012 survey, the most common were marine mechanics (31%), marine electricians (12%), and painters (11%). The other occupations each accounted for less than 10% of the employees. (See Figure 10)

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xix

Most employees worked full-time (96% in 2012), though the proportion of part-time workers has increased over time, from 2% in 2007 to 6% in 2012. (See

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xx

)

In 2012, over half the employees (57%) worked for a repair company, 19% worked for a manufacturer, 18% worked for a company focused on marine systems, and 5% worked for a company with another primary focus.

The most common three occupations for manufacturers were marine carpenters (22%), marine mechanics (18%), and Fiberglas technicians open (17%). The top three occupations for repairers were marine mechanics (43%), marine electricians (15%), and painters (14%). For companies focused on marine systems, the most common occupations were assemblers (29%), riggers (14%), and marine mechanics (11%).

Due to the fact that the two largest employers in the 2009 survey did not respond to the 2012 survey, employment trends of survey data over time are not presented here. However, data from the Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) sheds some light on changes in employment over time. The ESD data shows a decline of 18% in employment from 2009 to 2011, the most recent data available.10 A closer look at the year-to-year changes illustrates that while employment declined by 28% from 2008 to 2009 and 21% from 2009 to 2010, this trend reversed from 2010 to 2011, with a small increase of 4%. This may indicate that the industry is beginning to rebound from the recession. Please see Appendix A for further analysis of the ESD data.

Figure 10: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution of Employees among Key Occupations

10 Data supplied by the Washington Employment Security Department, Labor Market & Economic Analysis Branch, Vancouver Office. It includes NAICS 336612 and part of NAICS 811490.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxi

Figure 11: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees

98% 97% 94%

2% 3% 6%

2007 2009 2012

Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees

Full-time Part-time

FORECAST GROWTH/DECLINE IN EMPLOYMENT AND ANTICIPATED RETIREMENTS

Respondents were asked to estimate the number of employees they expect to have in each occupation two years after the survey. In the 2012 survey, they estimated the employee counts for 2014. Respondents reported also reported how many current employees they anticipate losing to retirements in the next two years (by 2014).

These forecasts are displayed below in Figure 12.

Overall, the survey results show that employers were pessimistic about employment in the following two years, expecting a decline of 9.2% in these key occupations by 2014. Employers anticipated that 4.9% of their employees in these key occupations will retire by 2014. This means that layoffs may continue in this industry through 2014.

Forecasts by Occupation

When examined by occupation, the forecasts in the 2012 survey show the highest projected growth in Fiberglas technicians closed (75%) and marine electricians (61%). While Fiberglas technicians closed shows the largest percentage growth, it is the occupation with the smallest number of employees in the survey (see Figure 10 above), meaning that this growth would result in few openings overall. In contrast, marine electricians is the occupation with the second

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxii

“Economy still very weak and not likely to add significantly to employees regardless of qualifications”

- Medium repairer

highest employment in the survey so 61% growth would result in a notable number of openings. The 15% retirement anticipated among marine electricians would add to the openings.

Growth was also anticipated in electronics technicians (8% growth and 8% retirement) and aluminum welders (7% growth and 19% retirement).

Employers forecast declines in employment of the remaining occupations, except for Fiberglas technicians open (no change) and marine carpenters.11 The loss of jobs is expected to exceed retirements in all of these occupations.

The largest percentage of retirements was anticipated within aluminum welders (19%), marine electricians (15%), electronics technicians (8%), and riggers (8%).

Forecasts by Primary Focus

Both manufacturers and repairers predicted declines in three of the key occupations. Marine systems companies predicted declines in two occupations.

Among manufacturers, the largest growth was anticipated in Fiberglas technicians closed. The occupation with the largest anticipated growth among repairers was riggers. Companies focused on marine systems expected the greatest growth among marine electricians.

Manufacturers predicted the largest declines in CAD technicians. The greatest declines among repairers were predicted in the employment of painters and marine mechanics. Among marine systems companies, the greatest declines were predicted in riggers.

Repair and marine systems organizations were expecting retirements at higher rates (5%) than manufacturers (3%).

Forecasts by WDA

Employers in the Northwest WDA predicted growth in marine electricians, Fiberglas technicians – closed, riggers and assemblers. Declines were predicted in marine mechanics and patch and repair. For the other occupations, either no change was expected (Fiberglas technicians – open, patch and repair, electronics technicians, and CAD technicians) or not enough data was supplied to calculate forecasts.

In the Olympic/Pacific Mountain WDA, growth was not expected in any occupations. Declines were predicted in marine electricians, marine mechanics, and painters. The other occupations either had no change (Fiberglas technicians – open and assemblers) or not enough data to calculate forecasts.

In the King WDA, the only occupation with forecasted growth was electronics technicians. Fiberglas technicians closed, aluminum welders, and CAD technicians were expected to have no change. Declines were predicted in all other occupations, except Fiberglas technicians – open, which did not have enough data to produce forecasts.

Figure 12: 2012-2014: Forecast Change in Employment and Anticipated Retirements

11 No employers provided employment forecasts for marine carpenters so change in employment was not calculated for this occupation.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxiii

VACANCIES

Respondents reported the number of vacancies they were trying to fill at the time of the survey in each of the key occupations. These numbers provided the basis for calculating a snapshot of the vacancy rates at the time of the survey. (See Figure 13) The statewide vacancy rate among the key occupations in 2012 was 8.2%. This compares to 5.5% reported in 2009.

In 2012, the highest vacancy rates were in Fiberglas technicians open (23%), marine carpenters (17%), and electronics technicians (16%).

Vacancies by Primary Focus

The vacancy rate among manufacturers (15%) was more than double that of repairers (7%) or companies focused on marine systems (7%).

Among manufacturers, the highest vacancy rates were in marine carpenters, Fiberglas technicians open and assemblers.

Repairers had the highest vacancy rates among marine carpenters and patch and repair.

Companies focused on marine systems reported the highest vacancy rates in marine electricians and marine mechanics.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxiv

Vacancies by WDA

The vacancy rate was highest in Olympic/Pacific Mountain (13%), followed by Northwest (12%), and King (3%).

In the Olympic/Pacific Mountain WDA, most of the vacancies were in marine carpenters, Fiberglas technicians - open and painters.

In the Northwest WDA, most of the vacancies were in marine mechanics, marine electricians, marine carpenters, and Fiberglas technicians - open.

In the King WDA, the vacancies were in painters, marine electricians, riggers, patch and repair, and electronics technicians.

Figure 13: 2009 & 2012 Vacancy Rates by Occupation

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxv

DIFFICULTY OF FILLING VACANCIES

The survey asked respondents to report how difficult it has been to fill vacancies in each position over the prior year. This was a multiple choice question with response options of “not difficult”, “somewhat difficult”, and “very difficult”. (See Figure 14 and Figure 15)

It appears that filling vacancies has become a bit more difficult than in 2009, when the economic slowdown hit this industry. This is consistent with the increase in vacancy rates. For instance, in 2009 there was only one occupation where over 30% of the companies indicated that it was very difficult to fill vacancies. In 2012, eight occupations met that bar.

Overall, the most difficult positions to fill were electronics technicians (100% very or somewhat difficult), steel welders (75%), and Fiberglas technicians open (74%). Opinions were split on the difficulty of filling positions for aluminum welders (49% very difficult and 36% not difficult) and painters (43% very difficult and 41% not difficult).

In 2012, the occupations that were the easiest to fill were CAD technicians (“80% not difficult”), assemblers (73%) and patch and repair (72%).

Recruiting Difficulty by Company Size

Medium and large companies were more likely than smaller companies to indicate that it was difficult to fill vacancies.

Recruiting Difficulty by Primary Focus

Repairers (36%) were more likely to report that it was “very difficult” to fill vacancies than marine systems (33%) and manufacturers (23%). Among the repairers, over half of the employers indicated that it was very difficult to fill vacancies in marine mechanics, including the medium-sized repairer who wrote this explanation: “All over Washington State there is a shortage of trained or experienced marine mechanics. We try hard to attract qualified personnel without success. We realize we are in a remote town, and that is also a factor. But in networking with large companies in Seattle, they are also experiencing a lack of journeyman level mechanics.”

Recruiting Difficulty by WDA

Filling vacancies was reported as being the easiest in the King WDA and the most difficult in Olympic/Pacific Mountain. This finding is consistent with Olympic/Pacific Mountain having the highest vacancy rate and King having the lowest.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxvi

Figure 14: 2012 Difficulty Filling Vacancies

Figure 15: 2009 Difficulty Filling Vacancies

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxvii

UNION MEMBERSHIP

For each occupation, respondents reported whether or not their employees were union members.12

Overall, union membership was not common among the respondents in any of the three surveys. In 2012, union members worked in only five of the 13 key occupations, and among those occupations, they were unionized at less than 10% of the companies that employed each occupation.

The occupations with union members in 2012 were marine carpenters, marine electricians, marine mechanics, steel welders and painters.

MEDIAN HOURLY WAGES

Respondents provided the average hourly wage for each key occupation at the entry level, with five years of experience, and the maximum potential wage. From 2009 to 2012, the change in wages was mixed, depending on the occupation. Half the occupations had increases in median wages, while the other half experienced declines.13 The occupations with the largest growth in wages were painters, marine electricians, and Fiberglas technicians – open. The greatest declines were in the wages of aluminum welders and assemblers.

Highest and lowest paid occupations: In general, the highest paid occupations were marine electricians, marine mechanics, Fiberglass technicians – open, painters, electronics technicians, and CAD technicians, all with maximum potential wages of at least $25.00 per hour.14 The occupations with the lowest wages were aluminum welders, assemblers, riggers, and patch and repair.

Variation between occupations: As employees gained more experience in their fields, the variation in wages increased. For instance, among entry-level employees, the difference between the highest and lowest paying occupations was $9.00 per hour (based on median wages). At the maximum potential wages, the difference between the occupations was as much as $17.00 per hour.

Potential earnings growth within occupations: Marine electricians generally saw the most growth between their entry-level and maximum potential wages. Their maximum wages of

12 Please note: the survey question on unionization was intended to enable exploration of the hypothesis that unionized companies offer higher wages. However, since less than 10% of the companies had unionized employees, this analysis was not possible.13 The median is one way to report the “average” of a set of numbers; specifically, it is the value where half the cases fall below it, and half are above.14 In the 2007 and 2009 surveys, marine carpenters were among the highest paid occupations. In the 2012 survey, no employers provided 5-year or maximum wages for this occupation; however, marine carpenters had the highest entry-level wage, tied only with CAD technicians. It is likely that marine carpenters remains one of the highest paid positions in 2012.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxviii

$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.

The overall wages are presented in three figures below. First, detailed wages are provided for 2012 (

). The next figure displays the 2009 inflation-adjusted wages. Finally, the following figure enables easy comparison of the wage trends over time by placing the 2007, 2009 and 2012 results side-by-side. Dotted lines connect the wages for each occupation with five years experience, from year to year.15 (Figure 18)

Within each occupation, the figures depict three median levels of wages. The bottom number is the entry-level wage; the center number is the wage with five years experience, and the top number is the maximum potential wage for that occupation.

Figure 16: 2012 Median Hourly Wages Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage

15 Please note that the 2007 and 2009 wages were inflation adjusted to Q2 2012. For the detailed 2007 inflation adjusted wages, see Appendix C.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxix

Figure 17: 2009 Median Hourly Wages by Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxx

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

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxi

Figure 21: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Selected WDA

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxii

Employee BenefitsThe survey covered a variety of topics regarding employment benefits. Specific employee benefit topics included profit sharing, stock options, 401k programs, health insurance, and paid leave.

These survey results are presented alongside similar employee benefit data for the entire state, from the Washington State Employee Benefits Survey Report published by the Labor Market and Economic Analysis division of the Washington State Employment Security Department in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

Each employee benefit is presented below in a separate section, with two figures. The first figure provides the overall survey results for 2009 and 2012, along with breakdowns for the 2012 data by primary focus, company size, and location. The second figure shows 2009 and 2012 breakdowns by company size for the marine industry and statewide breakdowns

PERCENTAGE THAT BENEFITS ADD TO THE COST OF EACH EMPLOYEE

Employment benefits added a median of 15% to the cost of each employee in 2012, down from 20% in 2009. (See Figure 22) As in the prior surveys, medium and large companies offered the most comprehensive benefits, which also cost the most, adding at least 20% to the cost of each employee in 2012.

Figure 22: Median Percentage that Benefits Add to the Cost of Each Employee by Primary Focus , Company Size, and Selected WDA’s

20%15% 15%

25%

15% 15%

8%

31%

20%25% 25%

15%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

2009

Sur

vey

2012

Sur

vey

Man

uf

Rep

air

Mar

ine S

yste

ms

Ver

y sm

all

Smal

l

Med

ium

Larg

e

Oly

mpi

c/Pa

cific

M

ount

ain

Nor

thw

est

Kin

g

Overall Primary Focus Company Size Selected WDA's

Median Percentage that Benefits Add to the Cost of Each Employee by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA's

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxiii

$5.0

0

$10.

00

$15.

00

$20.

00

$25.

00

$30.

00

$35.

00

$40.

00

Very small**Small**

Medium*Large**

Very smallSmall

MediumLarge

Very smallSmall

MediumLarge

Very smallSmall

Medium*Large*

Very smallSmall**

Medium*Large

Very small*Small*

MediumLarge*

Very smallSmall

MediumLarge*

Very smallSmall

MediumLarge

Very smallSmall

MediumLarge*

Very smallSmall

MediumLarge*

Very smallSmall

MediumLarge

Very small*Small

MediumLarge*

Very smallSmall

Medium*Large*

Mar

ine

Car

pent

ers

Mar

ine

Elec

trici

ans

Mar

ine

Mec

hani

csA

lum

inum

W

elde

rsSt

eel

Wel

ders

Fibe

rgla

s Te

ch -C

lose

dFi

berg

las

Tech

-Ope

nR

igge

rsA

ssem

bler

sPa

tch

and

Rep

air

Pain

ters

Elec

troni

csTe

chni

cian

sC

AD

Te

chni

cian

s

* N

o w

ages

wer

e re

porte

d in

thes

e cat

egor

ies.

**O

nly

entry

-leve

l wag

es w

ere r

epor

ted i

n th

ese c

ateg

orie

s.

2012

Med

ian

Hou

rly

Wag

es b

y E

mpl

oyer

Siz

e:

Ent

ry L

evel

, with

Fiv

e Y

ears

Exp

erie

nce,

and

Max

imum

Pot

entia

l Wag

e

401K PROGRAMS

Thirty-six percent (36%) of the respondents offered a 401k retirement program, and 41% of those with a 401k program matched employees’ contributions. The maximum percentage of employees’ contributions that the companies matched ranged from 3% to 12%, with a median of 5%. (See Figure 23 and Figure 24)

The percentage of companies offering 401k programs declined from 41% in 2009 to 36% in 2012. As in 2009, more of the medium and large-size companies offered 401k plans, compared to the small and very small companies. Manufacturers were more likely to offer 401ks than repairers or those focused on marine systems.

Figure 23: 401k Programs: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s

Figure 24 offers some comparison data on companies in all industries in Washington State. In prior years, it appeared that the marine manufacturers and repairers represented by this survey were more likely to offer 401k plans. In 2012, the overall percentage of marine employers offering 401k plans was in line with the statewide average (marine: 36%; all industries: 37%). The marine industry and statewide data show similar trends by company size, where the medium and large companies were more likely to offer 401k plans.

Figure 241617: 2007-2012 Percentage of Companies Offering 401k Plans by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries

16 The Employment Security Department data provided in this figure as 401k plans is their category of “defined contribution plans”, which include 401k plans, as well as target-benefit and money-purchase pensions, profit sharing, and stock bonus plans.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxiv

Very small Small Medium Large Very small Small Medium Large

Marine Manufacturing & Repair: (2007, 2009 & 2012 Survey Data)

All Industries: Employee Benefits SurveyReports, Washington Sta te Employment Security

Department-LMEA, 2008, 2010 and 20122007 30% 54% 50% 93% 30% 45% 59% 77%2009 32% 20% 73% 100% 30% 44% 60% 78%2012 33% 25% 63% 67% 30% 45% 60% 83%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007, 2009 & 2012 Percentage of Companies Offering 401k Plans by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries

2007 2009 2012

17 The number of employees included in each Employment Security Department category is slightly different from the survey breakdowns. The marine survey data is displayed with small employers being 10-19 employees and medium being 20-49 employees. The 2012 ESD data has 10-24 employees in the small category and 25-49 in the next largest category. All other categories are the same.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxv

BONUS/PROFIT SHARING PROGRAMS

Bonuses and profit sharing programs declined from 39% in 2009 to 30% in 2012. As in the other employment benefits, medium and large companies were the most likely to offer bonuses or profit sharing.

Figure 25: Bonus or Profit Sharing Programs: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxvi

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PROGRAMS

Employee stock ownership plans (ESOP’s) were rarely offered; however, they were much more common among marine systems companies (25%) than manufacturers (9%) or repairers (0%). Overall, 9% of the respondents in 2012 offered ESOP’s, up from 2% in 2012. Much of the increase was due to the inclusion of marine systems companies for the first time in the 2012 survey. (See Figure 26)

Figure 26: Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s

2% 9% 9% 0%25%

11% 0% 0% 0%22%

0% 9%0%

25%50%75%

100%

2009

Sur

vey

2012

Sur

vey

Man

uf

Rep

air

Mar

ine S

yste

ms

Ver

y sm

all

Smal

l

Med

ium

Larg

e

Oly

mpi

c/Pa

cific

M

ount

ain

Nor

thw

est

Kin

gOverall Primary Focus Company Size Selected

WDA's

Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Percentage of Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus,

Company Size, and Selected WDA's

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxvii

HEALTH INSURANCE

The majority of companies offered health insurance to their employees, regardless of primary company focus, size, or location: however, the percentage declined from 88% in 2009 to 69% in 2012.

Figure 27: Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Primary Focus, Company size, and Selected WDA’s

As of 2012, it appears that employers in the marine industry were less likely to offer health insurance coverage than other industries in Washington State (marine: 69%, all industries: 89%). This is a change from prior years (2009 marine: 88%; 2009 all industries: 55%).

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxviii

Figure 28: Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries


Marine Manufacturing & Repair(2007, 2009 & 2012 Survey Data )

All Industries: Employee Benefits SurveyReports, Washington Sta te Employment Security


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries

2007 2009 2012

In 2012, the proportion of health insurance that employees paid for themselves (not including dependents) ranged from 0% to 50%, with an overall mean of 9%. Employees at the small and very small companies paid a smaller proportion of the health insurance costs than employees at medium and large companies.

It appears that employees in the marine industry paid a smaller proportion of their health insurance than employees among all industries in Washington. This was true regardless of company size.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xxxix

Figure 29: Percentage of Health Insurance Premiums Covered by the Employee (Not Including Dependents) by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries


Marine Manufacturing & Repair(2007, 2009 & 2012 Survey Data )

All Industries: Employee Benefits SurveyReports, Washington State Employment Security


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Percentage of Health Insurance Premiums Covered by the Employee by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries

2007 2009 2012

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xl

PAID LEAVE: VACATION, SICK LEAVE, PERSONAL TIME OFF

The survey asked employers whether they offered paid vacation, sick leave, or personal time off (PTO) and, if so, the number of hours they offered annually to entry-level employees (after any probationary period) as well as the maximum potential number of hours.

Over three-quarters of the companies offered paid vacation (77%) and over half provided PTO (53%) and/or paid sick leave (53%) in their benefits package. (See Figure 30, Figure 31 and

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xli

) PTO fills an interesting niche in the benefits package, sometimes offered as an alternative to vacation and sick leave and sometimes as a supplement to the other types of leave. Most of the employers who offered PTO also provided paid vacation. Among the respondents who did not offer sick leave, roughly half supplied PTO instead.

Boat and ship builders and repairers were different from other industries in the state in terms of the paid leave offered to employees. Companies in the marine industry were more likely to offer paid vacation (marine: 77%; all industries: 63%) and sick leave (marine: 53%; all industries: 50%). However, they were less likely to offer PTO (marine: 53%; all industries: 86%). (See Figure 33)

The number of hours of paid leave offered by survey respondents varied widely:

Paid vacation: Entry-level employees received a median of 40 hours of paid level annually. No employers reported the maximum level of paid vacation.

Sick leave: Employers offered a median of 40 hours of sick leave at the entry level and 48 hours at the maximum level.

Personal time off: Entry-level PTO had a median of 24 hours, and the maximum level was 40 hours.

Paid Leave by Primary Focus

Employers focused on marine systems were more likely to offer PTO and sick leave than marine manufacturers and repairers. Marine systems employees were less likely to receive paid vacation than employees of repairers and manufacturers.

Paid Leave by Company Size

Paid vacation was offered by the majority of companies, regardless of size. At least half of the employers of all sizes offered PTO, though it was most commonly found at small or large employers, as opposed to very small or medium employers. There were no strong patterns in whether sick leave was offered by companies of different sizes. It was not clear why no large employers indicated that they offered sick leave.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xlii

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

57% 53% 47% 41%

71%

50%67%

50%67% 64%

37%

70%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2009

Sur

vey

2012

Sur

vey

Man

uf

Rep

air

Mar

ine S

yste

ms

Ver

y sm

all

Smal

l

Med

ium

Larg

e

Oly

mpi

c/Pa

c Mtn

Nor

thw

est

Kin

g

Overa ll Primary Focus Company Size Selected WDA's

Percentage of Companies Offering Personal Time Off by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA's

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xliii

Figure 32: Percentage of Companies Offering Sick Leave by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA’s

31%53% 56%

38%

71%56%

33%

75%

0%

50% 43%

73%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%20

09 S

urve

y

2012

Sur

vey

Man

uf

Rep

air

Mar

ine S

yste

ms

Ver

y sm

all

Smal

l

Med

ium

Larg

e

Oly

mpi

c/Pa

c Mtn

Nor

thw

est

Kin

g

Overall Primary Focus Company Size Selected WDA's

Percentage of Companies Offering Sick Leave by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA's

Figure 3318: 2012 Percentage of Companies Offering Paid Vacation, PTO, and Sick Leave by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries

Very small

Small Medium Large Very sma ll

Small Medium Large

Marine Manufacturing & Repair (2012 Survey Data)

All Industries: "2012 Employee Benefits Survey Report",

Washington State Employment Security Department-LMEA, December 2012

Paid Vaca tion 74% 83% 100% 67% 42% 44% 49% 67%Personal Time Off 50% 67% 50% 67% 60% 66% 74% 87%Sick Leave 56% 33% 75% 0% 24% 27% 34% 48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 Percentage of Companies Offering Paid Vacation, PTO, and Sick Leave by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries

Paid Vaca tion Personal Time Off Sick Leave

18 Please note: The Employment Security Department data listed as Personal Time Off in this figure is “undesignated leave”.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xliv

TechnologyIn 2012, the survey added a few questions about how the employers use technology. Respondents were asked to report if they use technology to upgrade employees’ skills, create new product lines, improve efficiency, improve safety, or something else. Technology was widely used by the marine employers to achieve all of these goals.

Figure 34: 2012 Percentage of Companies Using Technology to Achieve Goals

Employers were also asked in what other ways changing technology has affected their business. Respondents wrote in a variety of responses, including improved accounting, inventory control, routing, and communication. Employers also noted that the internet has allowed customers to become better informed, leading to higher expectations of the sales staff. Comments on this theme include the following:

With the internet, customers are more informed about your product and the other competing products than ever before. Your sales staff has to be up on everything, which means they need to research the web as much as their customers do.

Customers are doing their research before coming to us, and they ask smart or challenging questions. Their expectations are high, and we must rise to meet them.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xlv

TrainingThe survey also included questions on the subject of employee training. Survey questions covered the following topics:

Types of training offered

Public funds for training

Effectiveness of training from different sources

Influence of training from different sources in hiring decisions

TYPES OF TRAINING OFFERED

Respondents were asked which types of training they offered; this included covering the cost of training or providing time off for training. Over 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.

Figure 35: Percentage of Companies Offering Each Type of Training

14%

17%

21%

41%

46%

68%

None

Community and technica l college programs

Training from non-profit organiza tions (ABYC, AMTECH, ABBRA, etc.)

In-house tra ining (aside from OJT)

Factory schools

On-the-job tra ining (OJT)

Percentage of Companies Offering Each Type of Training

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xlvi

Among the companies providing in-house training, many offered more than one type of training. Over half of these companies offered self-directed training on the internet (82%) and/or via CDs (57%). Over one-third of the companies with in-house training offered on-site classrooms with instructors (37%). Over one-quarter (28%) offered self-directed training using paper materials.

Figure 36: Among Companies Providing In-House Training, the Percentage Offering Each Type

28%

37%

57%

82%

Self-directed training using paper materials

On-site classroom with instructors

Self-directed tra ining via CD’s

Self-directed training on the Internet

Among Companies Providing In-House Training, the Percentage Offering Each Type

It was very rare for companies to use state or federal workforce development funds or other public funds to assist in their training needs. Only 7% of the companies had ever taken advantage of these funding sources.

Figure 37: Percentage of Companies that Ever Used State/Federal Workforce Development Funds or Other Public Funds to Assist in Training Needs

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xlvii

EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING

Survey respondents were offered the opportunity to rate 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.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the employers rated factory training as very effective.

Over one-third (35%) of the employers gave a very effective rating to in-house training other than OJT.

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.

Figure 38: Ratings of Effectiveness of Each Type of Training

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xlviii

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation xlix

INFLUENCE OF TRAINING ON HIRING DECISIONS

The effectiveness of training for specific occupations was pursued through a follow-up question asking:

To what extent do the following types of training positively influence your hiring decisions when considering a particular candidate?

This question explored four of the five training types in Figure 38: 1) OJT or other in-house training with a previous employer, 2) factory schools, 3) community and technical college (CTC) programs and 4) training through non-profit organizations. For each combination of occupation and type of training, respondents indicated if the training affected their hiring decisions “greatly”, “somewhat”, or “not at all”.

This complex question proved to be a rich source of information about respondents’ opinions on the various types of training, as they pertain to each occupation. The results below are presented in two different ways: 1) trends by type of training and 2) trends by occupation.

The four figures below display the results by type of training: OJT, factory, CTC, and non-profits. (See Figure 40, Figure 41, Figure 42 and Figure 43) Overall, it is clear that OJT was the most influential type of training in hiring decisions. For all but three occupations, OJT was the highest rated type of training (though in a few cases, several types of training tied for the highest rank). Ratings of the influence of the other three types of training on hiring decisions varied widely depending upon the occupation.

Some general trends by type of training included the following:

On the job training was most influential for Fiberglas technicians closed, electronics technicians, marine electricians, and marine mechanics.

Factory schools were rated the most influential for electronics technicians and marine mechanics.

CTC programs had the most influence on the hiring of steel welders, marine electricians, and electronics technicians.

Training programs through non-profit organizations were the most influential for the hiring of marine electricians, Fiberglas technicians closed, and steel welders.

These types of training are not equally influential in hiring decisions. For OJT and factory training, the highest rating of any occupation was 100%, meaning that all of the respondents rated OJT or factory training as greatly influential in hiring decisions for any particular occupation. For training programs through non-profits, the highest rating was 63%. It was 50% for CTC programs.

In order to make it easier to review which types of training were rated the most influential for each occupation, Figure 39 places all the occupations side-by-side and provides the percentage of

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation l

respondents stating that each type of training greatly influenced their hiring decisions. Some interesting findings emerged:

Marine carpenters: OJT was the only type of training that employers of marine carpenters rated in the 2012 survey. It was also the most influential type of training for this occupation in the prior survey.

Marine electricians: OJT and training from nonprofits were both influential in the hiring decisions of close to two-thirds of marine electricians employers.

Marine mechanics: Factory training was the most important in the hiring decisions of marine mechanics, followed closely by OJT.

Steel welders: OJT was the most important type of training in considering a candidate applying for a position as a steel welder (59%). The other types of training were influential for half of the employers.

Aluminum welders: None of the types of training was greatly influential for employers of aluminum welders in the 2012 survey.

Fiberglas technician closed: The types of training that were influential in the hiring decisions of Fiberglas technicians were very different depending upon whether the employers were hiring for open or closed molding. For Fiberglas technicians closed, all of the employers rated OJT as greatly influential in hiring decisions. Factory training and non-profit provided training were rated as greatly affecting hiring decisions by just over half of the respondents.

Fiberglas technician open: For the open-molded positions, only 14% of the respondents rated OJT, factory and nonprofit training as greatly influential.

Riggers: Factory training was the most influential type of training, followed by OJT and programs through non-profits.

Assemblers: It doesn’t appear that these types of training figure prominently in the hiring decisions for assemblers. The most influential type of training was OJT, only greatly influencing 16% of the employers.

Patch and Repair: OJT was the most influential type of training in the hiring of employees in patch and repair.

Painters: OJT was far and away the most influential type of training for painters.

Electronics Technicians: All of the employers rated factory training as greatly influential in their hiring decisions for electronics technicians, as did 81% of those considering the candidates’ OJT.

CAD Technicians: Only 14% rated OJT, factory, and CTC training as being influential.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation li

Figure 39: Percentage of Respondents Stating that Each Type of Training Greatly Affects Hiring Decisions

51%

65%

31% 37

%63

%

63%

75%

10%

28%

59%

50%

50%

50%

0% 0% 0% 0%

100%

54%

0%54

%

14%

14%

0%14

%

36%

57%

0%15

%

16%

9%0%

9%

23%

13%

0%13

%

44%

6%0%

8%

84%

100%

32% 37

%

16%

16%

16%

0%

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

OJT

Fact

ory

CTC

Non

Prof

Marine Carpenters*

Marine Electricians

Marine Mechanics

Steel Welders

AluminumWelders

Fiberglas Tech

Closed

Fiberglas Tech Open

Riggers Assemblers Patch and Repair

Painters ElectronicsTechnicians

CADTechnicians

* No employers provided ra tings of the effect of factory, CTC, or nonprofit tra ining on the hiring of marine carpenters.

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

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lii

Figure 41: Factory Training: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation

Figure 42: CTC Training Programs: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation liii

Figure 43: Training from Non-Profit Organizations (ABYC, AMTECH, etc.): Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation liv

CONCLUSIONSThe survey results paint the picture of an industry in flux after the dramatic downturn in the economy. Between 2009 and 2012, the recession affected the composition of the employers, employment in key occupations, wages, and employment benefits.

Composition of employers: Since the prior survey in 2009, industry sources reported many companies in the marine industry laying off employees, closing sites, halting production temporarily, and going out of business. The survey results support these anecdotal reports. Compared to 2009, the composition of the industry has shifted, with fewer large companies and more small companies.

Employment: Washington State Employment Security Department data shows declines of 41% in employment from 2008 to 2010, with a small uptick of 4% in 2011. This increase in employment may signal that the downturn in this industry began to turn around in 2011.

However, employer forecasts continue to be pessimistic, with an expected decline of over 9% in employment from 2012 through 2014. Even with the anticipated retirement of almost 5% of the employees, this means a net loss of employment. Growth was anticipated among marine electricians, Fiberglas Technicians closed, electronics technicians and aluminum welders.

Even with the forecast declines in employment, the 2012 respondents reported higher vacancy rates (8.2%) than the prior survey (5.5%) and corresponding increased difficulty in filling vacancies.

Wages: Compared to the prior survey, the change in wages was mixed, depending upon the occupation. Half the occupations saw increased wages, while the others experienced declines. The lack of strong wage trends may be a sign of the industry struggling to rebound from the recession.

Employment Benefits: Another possible effect of the downturn in the economy is that fewer employers offered employment benefits in 2012 than 2009. In prior years, the marine industry employers were more likely to offer benefits than employers in other industries in Washington State. With the decline, marine employers are now in line with employers statewide. However, marine employers who provide health insurance still cover a larger proportion of the premiums than employers in other industries.

Training: While the survey questions on training do not provide any insight into the effects of the economy, the results are interesting and deserve mention in the conclusion of this report. The strongest themes revolve around OJT, which was by far the most popular type of training. Over two-thirds of the employers offered OJT (making it the most common type of training). It was also rated the most effective type of training, with 84% rating it “very effective”. Not surprisingly, OJT also had the most positive influence on hiring decisions, when compared to the different types of training.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lv

In sum, these survey results reflect the industry’s responses to the challenging economic climate. While employment is down, it appears that the industry may be turning around.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lvi

APPENDIX A: INDUSTRY BACKGROUNDBoat manufacturers and repair companies in Washington State represent an important segment of the marine industry and of the state economy. From 1994 through 2008, Washington Employment Security Department (ESD) data reported strong growth in the boat building and repair industry. As a result of the recession between 2008 to 2010, employment dropped by 44% and total payroll declined by 41%. In 2011, there were small improvements in both indicators, as employment increased by 4% and payroll grew by 8%. This may indicate that the industry is beginning to rebound from the recession.19 (See Figure 44 and

19 Washington Employment Security Department, Labor Market & Economic Analysis Branch, Vancouver Office, 22 April 2009.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lvii

)

Figure 44: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Payroll: 1990-2011

2008: $255,546,381

2011: $162,672,342

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

Source: Washington Employment Security Department, Labor Market & Economic Analysis Branch, Vancouver Office

Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry Payroll: 1990-2011

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lviii

Figure 45: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Total Employment: 1990-2008

6,215

3,650

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Source: Washington Employment Security Department, Labor Market & Economic Analysis Branch, Vancouver Office

Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry Total Employment: 1990-2011

Examining the data by employer size shows that the large firms took the brunt of the slowdown of the recession. While the total number of companies in this industry did not change from 2008 to 2011, the distribution by company size changed markedly. The number of large employers (with 50+ employees) declined by more than half (52%). The number of medium-sized employers (with 20-49 employees) declined by roughly one-quarter (24%). The number of employers with 10-19 employees declined by 6%. The number of very small firms (with 1-9 employees) grew by 7%, and the number of one-person companies (with no employees) increased by 45%.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lix

Figure 46: Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry, Percent Change in Number of Companies 2008-2011 by Company Size

45%

7%

-6%-24%

-52%No Employees Very small

(1-9 employees)Small

(10-19 employees)Medium

(20-49 employees)Large

(50+ employees)

Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry Percent Change in Number of Companies

2008-2011 by Company Size

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lx

APPENDIX B: SURVEY PROTOCOL

Q1. Does your company’s work primarily focus on… Boat/Ship Manufacturing Boat/Ship Repair Marine Systems Other Don’t know

Q2. [IF OTHER] What is your company’s primary focus?

Q3. [IF MANUFACTURING] Does your company also do repair work? Yes No Don’t know

Q4. [IF REPAIR] Does your company also do manufacturing? Yes No Don’t know

Q5. How many employees does your company have at all of your sites in Washington State? (Please include ALL employees, not just hourly employees) _____________

Q6. What is the zip code at your main site in Washington State? ________________ zip code

Q7. What is the maximum vessel size your company produces and/or repairs (in feet)? _____________ feet

We are especially interested in certain hourly jobs at your company. The following questions will focus on 13 different categories of hourly occupations.

1. Marine carpenters2. Marine electricians3. Marine mechanics4. Aluminum welders

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxi

5. Steel welders6. Fiberglas/composite technicians (closed mold)7. Fiberglas/composite technicians (open mold)8. Riggers (electrical/mechanical/sailboat)9. Assemblers10. Patch & repair (i.e. patch & detail) 11. Painters12. Electronics Technician13. CAD Technician

Please note:

Please classify each employee in ONE primary occupation only. We recognize that some employees may perform work in more than one job category. For simplicity, please select the category that most closely represents each employee’s primary job category.

Please include all employees that fit in each job category, regardless of their skill level. For wage questions, please average the wage data across all skill levels, if necessary.

This is not a comprehensive list of occupations. Employees who do not fit into any of these occupations should not be included.

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxii

Q8. Please mark the occupations covered by your current employees and your planned hiring in the next two years.

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders

Fiberglas/composite technicians (closed mold)

Fiberglas/composite technicians (open mold)

Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters

Electronics Technician

CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxiii

Q9- 12. How many employees do you currently have in each of these occupations, and in the next two years (by 2014) how many employees do you expect to have in each occupation? (Estimates are fine.)

Current number of Full-time Employees

Current number of Part-time Employees

Number of Full-time Employees in 2014

Number of Part-time Employees in 2014

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders



Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters


CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxiv

Q13. Are any of these occupations unionized at your company?

Unionized Not Unionized Decline to Respond/Not Applicable

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders



Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters


CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxv

Q14. For each occupation, how many vacant positions are you currently trying to fill?

Number of Current Vacancies

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders



Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters


CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxvi

Q15. In the past year, how difficult has it been to fill vacancies in each occupation?

Very difficult

Somewhat difficult

Not difficult

Does not apply

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders



Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters


CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxvii

Q16. Over the next two years, how many of your current employees in these occupations do you anticipate losing to employee retirements?

Retirements in the next 2 years (2012-2014)

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders



Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters


CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxviii

Wages & Benefits:

Q17, 18 & 19. What is the average hourly wage you currently offer for employees at the entry-level (after any probationary period), with five years experience, and at the maximum potential for each occupation?

Entry-Level Hourly Wage

Hourly Wage with 5 Years Experience

Maximum Potential Hourly Wage

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders



Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters


CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxix

Q20. What percentage does the total benefits package add to the cost of each employee? __________%

Q21. Does your company offer any sort of bonus or profit sharing program?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q22. Does your company offer an Employee Stock Ownership Plan?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q23. Does your company offer a 401k for your employees?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q24. [IF YES] Does your company match employee 401k contributions?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q25. [IF YES] What is the maximum percentage of employee 401k contributions that your company will match through the 401k? ___________%

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxx

Q26. Does your company offer health insurance coverage?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q27. [If YES] On average, what percentage of the cost of health insurance do employees pay for themselves, not including dependents? (An estimate is fine.) ___________%

Q28. Does your company offer the following benefits?

Yes No

Paid vacation

Sick leave

Personal time off

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxi

Q29 & 30. For each benefit that your company offers (paid vacation, sick leave and/or personal time), please provide the number of annual paid hours an entry-level employee receives (after any probationary period), and the maximum potential number of paid hours.

Number of Annual Paid Hours: Entry-level

Maximum Potential Number of Annual Paid Hours

Paid vacation

Sick leave

Personal time off

Technology:

We are interested in learning how companies are utilizing technology within their business.

Q31. Has your company used technology to achieve the following goals? (Please mark all that apply.)

Upgrade employee skills

Create new product lines

Improve efficiency

Improve safety

Other – please specify: _______________________________________________

Q32. In what other ways has changing technology affected your business?

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxii

Training:

Q33. Which of the following types of training opportunities has your company provided? This includes covering the cost of training or providing time off for training. (Please mark all that apply.)

On-the-job training (OJT)

In-house training (aside from OJT)

Factory schools

Community and technical college programs

Training from non-profit organizations (ABYC, AMTECH, ABBRA, etc.)

Other – please specify: _______________________________________

None

Don’t know

Q34. [IF PROVIDE IN-HOUSE TRAINING] What methods of on-site training do you offer, aside from OJT? (Please mark all that apply.)

On-site classroom with instructors

Self-directed training via CD’s

Self-directed training on the Internet

Self-directed training using paper materials

Other - please specify: ___________________________________

Don’t know

Q35. Has your company ever used state/federal workforce development funds or other public funds to assist in your training needs?

Yes

No

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxiii

Don’t know

Q36. How effective have you found the following types of training to be?

Very effective Somewhat effective

Not at all effective

Don’t know

a. On-the-job (OJT)

b. In-house training, other than OJT

c. Factory schools

d. Community and technical college programs

e. Non-profit organizations (ABYC, AMTECH, etc.)

f. Other - Please specify:

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxiv

Q37-40. To what extent do the following types of training positively influence your hiring decisions when considering a particular candidate?

(Please enter a 3 if it GREATLY affects your hiring decision, a 2 if it SOMEWHAT affects your decision and a 1 if it DOES NOT affect your decision at all.)

OJT or other in-house training with a previous employer

Factory schools

Community and technical college programs –

Non-profit organizations (ABYC, AMTECH, etc.)

Marine carpenters

Marine electricians

Marine mechanics

Aluminum welders

Steel welders



Riggers

Assemblers

Patch & repair

Painters


CAD Technician

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxv

Q41. This is the end of the survey. Do you have any additional thoughts you would like to share or feedback about the survey?

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxvi

Q40. If you are willing to be contacted by WSU researchers to answer possible follow-up questions about your responses to this survey, please enter your contact information below. This contact information will not be shared with any individual or organization outside of the WSU researchers.

a. Name: _______________________________________________________

b. Company Name: _______________________________________________

c. Title:_________________________________________________________

d. Phone Number:_________________________________________________

e. Email:________________________________________________________

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxvii

APPENDIX C: 2007 MEDIAN HOURLY WAGES

Figure 47: 2007 Median Hourly Wages Occupation: Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage

Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation lxxviii

Documents

NW Marine Center of Excellence - A Guide To …€¦ · Web viewSupport for this project was provided by the Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine Manufacturing and Technology