The Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
Newsline
About DPE
Affiliates
Public Policy
Programs & Publications

DPE Activities Reports

Organizing Professionals in the 21st Century: Conference Papers and Other Materials
Lunch & Learn Programs

Bibliography on Pay Equity

Bibliography on Pay Equity

DPE Analyses

Publications List

Order Form

Issue Fact Sheets
Professional Reports (by others)
Professionals
FAQ
Contact Us
Site Map
Home

Home > Programs & Publications > DPE Analyses > Scientists, Engineers and Technical Workers
ANALYSIS Analysis from Current Statistics on Scientists, Engineers and Technical Workers: 2002 Edition

Scientists, Engineers and Technical Workers

Reflecting the importance of advanced technologies to an expanding global economy, employment in science and engineering dramatically increased during the second half of the twentieth century. According to government sources, the number of scientists increased from 150,000 to 2,685,000 between 1950 and 2001, while the number of engineers increased from 400,000 to 2,122,000.1 By 2001, scientists and engineers accounted for more than 23% of the professional labor force. (See page 3.)

1991–2001: Growth and Change

Between 1991 and 2001, the number of jobs in the U.S. increased by less than 15% while science employment increased by more than 93%. Much of this can be attributed to the enormous growth in computer scientists.2 The number of computer systems analysts and scientists increased by 268%, or 1,135,000 people, during this period. The number of natural scientists increased by almost 33%. Within this category, medical scientists experienced the largest increase: 111%. (See page 5.)

Engineering jobs increased by 15% between 1991 and 2001. However, certain occupations experienced more marked growth. The number of electrical and electronics engineers increased by 76%, while civil engineers increased by 33%. The number of nuclear, petroleum, chemical, and mining engineers declined during this period. (See page 10.)

Similar trends are apparent in the science and engineering technician occupations. While the number of engineering and related technologists and technicians increased by only 6% between 1991 and 2001, the number of electrical and electronic engineering technicians grew by 77%. Meanwhile, the number of science technicians increased by 25%. Within this category, the number of biological technicians increased by 94%. Drafting occupations declined along with the number of chemical technicians. (See page 14.)

2000–2010: Computer Fields Expected to Boom

The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects that the trends evident between 1991 and 2001 will persist. While the economy as a whole is expected to generate 15.2% more jobs over this decade, employment opportunities for scientists (excluding social scientists) and engineers are anticipated to increase by about 44%, amounting to an additional 2.3 million jobs.3 (See pages 4, 5, and 8.)

Approximately 88% of the increase in science and engineering jobs will occur in computer-related occupations. Overall employment in these occupations is projected to grow by almost 69% between 2000 and 2010, with more than 1.9 million jobs being added. Eight of the ten occupations expected to grow most rapidly between 2000 and 2010 are computer-related.

The increasing demand for computer-related occupations reflects the rapid advances in computer technology and the continuing development of new computer applications, including the Internet and intranets. Overall, computer specialists, a component of computer and mathematical occupations, are projected to increase by 68.6%, for example. Five computer occupations — computer software applications engineers, computer support specialists, computer systems analysts, computer systems software engineers, and network and computer systems administrators — also are among the occupations with the largest projected numerical job growth. Computer and data processing services is the economy’s fastest-growing industry, and in almost all industries, employment in computer occupations is projected to grow much faster than average.4 (See pages 4 and 6.)

Other Occupational Changes, 2000–2010

Within engineering, as in the period from 1991–2001, electrical and electronic engineering is projected to have the biggest absolute employment gain, up by 31,000 jobs, or about 11% between 2000 and 2010. Larger relative gains are expected for biomedical, environmental, and computer hardware engineers. Further declines in petroleum engineers, as well as mining and geological engineers, are projected. Employment for all engineering occupations is expected to increase by only 9.4% over this period.5 (See page 10.)

Employment in life- and physical-science occupations is projected to increase by about 18%, or 140,000. The largest percentage increases in these areas are expected in medical science (26.5%, or 10,000 jobs) between 2000 and 2010. At 18.3%, astronomers and physicists are expected to experience the largest numerical growth (44,000 jobs). (See page 6.)

New job growth in related technician employment is projected. Among engineering technicians, a total increase in numbers of 12% is anticipated. The number of environmental engineering technicians is expected to increase by more than 29%, while the number of surveying and mapping technicians will increase by more than 25% and drafters by 19.5%. An increase of more than 16% (95,000 additional jobs) is expected for computer programmers. The number of life and physical science technicians is expected to increase by 19%. Within this category, biological technicians are expected to have the largest percentage increase (26.4%), while the number of nuclear technicians will increase by almost 21%. (See page 15.)

Women, Blacks, and Hispanics: Underrepresented Among Scientists and Engineers

Women now account for almost half the U.S. work force. They have made significant progress into both the mainstream and the higher echelons of the work force and currently constitute the majority of professional and technical employees. Yet women remain under- represented in the traditionally male-dominated professions of science and engineering. According to the National Science Foundation, women made up slightly less than one-quarter (24.7%) of the science and engineering work force in 2000, while they composed almost 49% of the college-degreed work force.6

During the years from 1995–2001, women’s participation in science, engineering, and related technician occupations increased significantly, and women now predominate among medical scientists. However, women remain underrepresented in many fields, particularly in mathematical and computer science and engineering.

Between 1995 and 2001, the number of female natural scientists increased by almost 41%. In 2001, women accounted for 34.4% of all natural scientists. The number of women mathematical and computer scientists grew by 65%, while the number of men in the field increased by more than 80%. In 2001, women accounted for 30% of mathematical and computer scientists. The number of women engineers increased by 35.6% during these years. The number of women in civil and aerospace engineering also increased dramatically. But still, in 2001, women held only 10.4% of all engineering jobs. Meanwhile, the number of female engineering technicians increased by 37% and that of female science technicians increased by almost 36%. Yet women remain underrepresented, especially among engineering technicians. In 2001, women accounted for only 21.3% of engineering technicians, but 44.5% of science technicians. They were the majority of biological technicians. (See pages 8, 12 and 16.)

With the exception of Asians, minorities are a much smaller proportion of scientists and engineers in the U.S. than they are of the entire U.S. population. Asians composed 11% of scientists and engineers in 1999, although they accounted for 4% of the U.S. population. Blacks (12%), Hispanics (11%) and American Indians (1%) as a group composed 24% of the U.S. population and 7% of the total science and engineering labor force in 1999. Blacks and Hispanics each composed about 3% and Native Americans less than half of 1% of all scientists and engineers.7 Between 1993 and 1999, the portion of Asians in the science and engineering labor force increased by about 2%, whereas the portions of blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians remained virtually unchanged.8

An examination of Bureau of Labor Statistics data finds that in 2001, blacks composed 11.3% of the work force, but 8.6% of mathematical and computer scientists, 4.8% of natural scientists, and 5.5% of all engineers. Meanwhile, Hispanics, who accounted for 10.9% of the labor force in 2001, composed 3.6% of all mathematical and computer scientists, 2.8% of all natural scientists and 3.5% of all engineers. No statistics on the percentage of Asian scientists and engineers are available from this source. (See pages 9 and 13.)

Like women, blacks and Hispanics, are better represented among technicians than among scientists and engineers. Blacks accounted for almost 9% of engineering and related technologists and technicians and almost 6.1% of all science technicians in 2001. That same year, Hispanics accounted for more than 7.8% of engineering and related technologists and technicians and 6.9% of all science technicians. (See page 17.)

In 2000, the percentages of these historically underrepresented groups in science and engineering occupations were still lower than the percentages of these groups in the college-educated work force. And they are underrepresented among those with college degrees. Blacks made up 6.9% of the science and engineering work force but 7.4% of the college-degreed work force. Hispanics made up 3.2% of the science and engineering work force but 4.3% of those in the work force with college degrees.

Yet despite the continuing underrepresentation of women, blacks, and Hispanics, their share of science and engineering occupations is more than twice that of 1980 for blacks (2.6% in 1980; 6.9% in 2000) and women (11.6% in 1980; 24.7% in 2000). Hispanic representation increased between 1980 and 2000, albeit at a lower rate (from 2.0–3.2%). At the same time, foreign-born college graduates also became a larger percentage of those in science and engineering jobs (11.2% in 1980; 19.3% in 2000).9

Unemployment

Scientists and engineers have been experiencing lower than average rates of unemployment. Of the approximately 4.8 million scientists and engineers in the labor force in 2001, 2.7% (132,000) were unemployed. This compares with 4.4% of the total U.S. labor force and 2.2% of all professional specialty workers. The highest unemployment rate was for mathematical and computer scientists (3.2%). Science and engineering technicians experienced a 3.7% unemployment rate. (See page 23.)

Among scientists and engineers, blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be unemployed. Among technicians and technologists, blacks were more likely to be unemployed than either whites or Hispanics. Women scientists were less likely to be unemployed than men, while women engineers were slightly more likely to be unemployed. Among science and engineering technicians, women were more likely to be unemployed than men. (See page 23.)10

Where Do They Work?

The private, for-profit sector is by far the largest employer of science and engineering workers. In 1999, 74% of scientists and engineers with bachelor’s degrees and 62% of those with master’s degrees were employed in private, for-profit companies. Academia was the largest source of employment for those with doctorates (48%). Sectors employing fewer science and engineering workers included educational institutions other than four-year colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, and state or local government agencies.11

The percentages of scientists and engineers employed in private, for-profit industry vary greatly by occupation. Although slightly more than three-quarters of both mathematical and computer scientists and engineers (76 and 78% respectively) were employed in this sector, only about one-fourth (27%) of life scientists were so employed in 1999. Educational institutions employed the largest percentages of life scientists (45%).

Contingent Work Increases

The nature of employment for many Americans, including scientists and engineers, is changing. Beginning in the 1980s, downsizing put an end to long-term, full-time, year-round employment for many workers. As companies restructured and downsized, contingent work arrangements blossomed. These arrangements assume many forms, including temporary and part-time employees, consultants, leased employees, subcontractors, and short-term, life-of-the-project employees. The common denominator for all contingent work is that there is no expectation of a long-term relationship between the employer and the employee and there is little job stability.12

The use of contingent workers has become an integrated business practice in today’s economy, where the rise in contingent work has coincided with a more general shift toward greater flexibility and lower costs for employers. For one thing, health, pension, and other benefits, such as paid vacation and sick leave, are often not available to the contingent work force. Contingent workers also often lack the protected right to form and join unions. In February 2001, about 20% of all contingent workers were professionals, a much higher percentage than for any other occupational category. They are engineers, computer specialists, chemists, nurses, architects, and lawyers, among others. Technicians and related support workers, including health, engineering, and science technicians, accounted for 3.3% of the total labor force and 2.5% of all contingent workers in 2001.

The majority of contingent workers are women. They are more likely than their male counterparts to be employed in industries — services, for example — that have a large portion of contingent workers. Moreover, compared to men, a much higher proportion of women are employed part-time, and part-time workers are more likely to be contingent than full-time workers.13 The American Chemical Society found that among its members, more than twice as many women were employed part-time in 2000 as their male colleagues: 5.6% versus 2.1%. Women in academia appear to be more vulnerable to part-time employment than women in other sectors. These women were almost three times more likely to be employed part-time than men: 8.5% versus 2.9%.14 (See pages 18 and 19.)

Wages and Wage Gaps

The median weekly earnings for a professional in 2001 were $854. That same year, most engineering occupations boasted median weekly salaries of more than $1,000. Petroleum engineers had the highest median weekly salary ($1,378), while chemical engineers earned $1,350, and both mining and aerospace engineers earned more than $1,200 a week. Engineers generally enjoy starting salaries that are significantly higher than those of bachelors’ degree graduates in other fields.15 (See page 32.)

While private industry typically offers higher pay to engineers than federal, state, or local government, there are demonstrable pay gradations within the private sector. Transportation and utilities, for example, pay the highest wages to engineers, while the service industry pays the lowest. The level of work performed, of course, has a significant influence on engineers’ wages. One study demonstrates that engineers in entry-level positions earned less than one-third as much as those in high-level engineering positions.16

Earnings among scientists also vary. Natural scientists had median weekly earnings of $901 in 2001. Within this category, chemists (other than biochemists) had median weekly earnings of $954. That same year, computer systems analysts and scientists had median weekly earnings of $1,100, while operations and systems researchers and analysts had median weekly earnings of $931, and actuaries earned a median wage of $1,332. Like engineers, scientists find that private industry offers higher wages than federal, state, or local government.17 (See page 32.)

Engineering and related technicians had median weekly earnings of $713 in 2001. Within this category, industrial engineering technicians had median weekly earnings of $794 and mechanical engineering technicians enjoyed median weekly earnings of $1,030. Science technicians had median weekly earnings of $625. Biological technicians had the lowest earnings: a median of $535 a week, and chemical technicians the highest: $761. Meanwhile, computer programmers earned $952. (See page 32–33.)

Women, blacks, and Hispanics in science and engineering occupations, as in other occupations, are more likely than men to be found at the lower salary ranges. This is true for mathematical and computer scientists, natural scientists, and engineers. It is also true for technicians. The median weekly earnings of female engineers were 89% of their male counterparts earnings in 2001, while the median weekly earnings of female mathematical and computer scientists were 77.5% of those of the men in their professions. Female natural scientists earned 24% less than men in the same occupations. Female engineering technicians earned 17% less in 2001 than those who were male, while science technicians who are female earned 19% less than those who are male. Women tend also to be concentrated more heavily in the lower-paying occupations within each field: for example, among biological and life scientists, medical scientists, and biological technicians. (See pages 28–33.)

An examination of the disparity in wages between men and women in computer-related professional occupations between 1991 and 2001 reveals that the pay gap for female computer systems analysts and scientists and operations increased from 11–21%, while the gap for female operations and systems researchers and analysts increased from 16–24%. The pay gap increased during a period when industry claimed there was such a shortage of information technology personnel that it justified the increased importation of guest workers from abroad under the H1-B visa program. The presence of the guest workers, who were mostly men, exacerbated the continuing underrepresentation (and underpayment) of women, blacks, and Hispanics. In fact, the percentage of women in computer sciences decreased between 1991 and 2001.18 (See page 34.)

Part of the wage gap can be explained by differences in years of experience and educational attainment. Fifty percent of women and 36% of men employed as scientists and engineers in 1999 had received their degrees within the previous ten years. In many occupational fields, women had attained a lower level of education than men. In the science work force as a whole, 16% of women and 20% of men held doctoral degrees in 1999. In biology, 26% of women and 40% of men held doctoral degrees, while in chemistry, doctoral degrees were held by 14% of women and 27% of men. In engineering, the difference is much less: about 5% of women and 6% of men held doctoral degrees. The highest degree earned is related to employment, particularly primary work activity and salary, i.e., scientists and engineers with bachelors’ degrees often do different kinds of work and earn lower salaries than scientists and engineers with doctorates.19 (See pages 47–49.)

In nearly every category, white men earn more than white women, black men and women, and Hispanic men and women. For example, among mathematics and computer scientists, white men earned almost 12% more than black men, almost 19% more than Hispanic men, 23% more than white women, 29.4% more than black women, and 23% more than Hispanic women. (See page 35.)

As with women, some of the wage gap between white men and blacks and Hispanics can be explained by differences in age, experience, and educational attainment. In 1997, about 27% of employed white scientists and engineers were under 35, compared with between 35% and 38% of Asian, black, American Indian, and Hispanic scientists and engineers. On average, black and Hispanic scientists and engineers have a lower level of educational attainment than scientists and engineers of other racial/ethnic groups. A bachelor’s degree is more likely to be the highest degree earned by black and Hispanic scientists and engineers than for white or Asian scientists and engineers. In 1999, a bachelor’s degree was the highest degree for 61% of black scientists and engineers in the U.S. work force, compared with 56% for all scientists and engineers.20

Here, as in the work force as a whole, part of the persistent wage gap experienced by women and minorities results from differences in education, experience, or time in the work force. But a significant portion of the gap cannot be explained by any of these factors. It is attributable to discrimination.21

Unions for Scientists, Engineers, and Technicians

Scientists, engineers, and technicians confront increasing challenges to their careers, brought about by rapidly changing technology, the turbulent world economy, and new work methods. Like other professionals, more scientists and engineers are turning to unions and collective bargaining to defend or recapture their professional autonomy, to be involved in making the decisions that affect their careers, and for greater professional and personal security.

In 2001, the highest union membership rate in the sciences was among statisticians (almost 17%) and in engineering, among metallurgical and materials engineers (11.2%). Among technicians, science technicians not working in chemistry or biology had the highest union density (more than 17%.) Unions do not have many members in the IT occupations. In 2001, 4% of computer programmers, 3.9% of computer systems analysts and scientists, and 5.6% of operations and systems researchers and analysts were union members. (See pages 39–41.)

Although many unions count science and engineering professionals and technicians among their members, until recently, there were few large-scale organizing campaigns in their fields. Union density in these large professions has been less than in many other professional fields, such as teaching, nursing or the performing arts. However, as the twentieth century drew to a close, there were indications that this situation was changing. In 1996, for example, University of California researchers and scientists concerned about maintaining professional standards voted overwhelmingly for representation by the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE), an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The unit covers technical researchers at all nine campuses, five medical centers, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In addition to concern for maintaining professional standards, researchers cited the desire for better compensation and benefits, career training and development, and a need for greater respect as primary reasons for joining the union.

Three years later, a campaign by a unit of more than 23,000 Boeing engineers and technicians to affiliate with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) drew even more attention. A successful strike by these workers in early 2000 against one of the nation’s largest corporations was taken by many observers as a sign that technical professionals — especially engineers — were growing anxious about their status and security, and were looking to union representation as a remedy. The key issues here were respect, the preservation of benefits, and increases in pay. The union has gone on to win a unit of 4,200 Boeing technicians based in Wichita, Kansas. At the start of the twenty-first century, a key concern for engineers and related technicians, and for the unions that represent them, is the number of high tech jobs leaving the U.S.

Union membership provides many benefits for professional and technical workers, including having a say in their work and in their workplace, dignity, and improved status for them and for their occupations. There are also financial benefits for white collar as for other workers. In the majority of cases for which data is available, science and engineering technicians who are union members earn more than those who are non-union. Where the non-union wage exceeds the union wage, it reflects the fact that a much greater proportion of scientists and engineers in government and academia are organized than in the higher-paying private industry where most scientists and engineers work. (See pages 42–43.)

College and University Education

In the last 20 years of the twentieth century, the U.S. college-age population declined by more than 21%, from 21.6 million in 1980 to 17.0 million in 2000. The college-age population decline reversed itself in 2001, and will increase to 19.3 million by 2010 (a 13% increase over the year 2000 figure). This increase in the college-age population portends another wave of expansion in U.S. higher education and growth in science and engineering at all levels.22

Meanwhile, echoing the overall demographic decline, the number of students enrolling in undergraduate degree programs decreased by 16% between 1983 and 1996. This trend turned around slightly in 1997 and 1998, with a 1.5% increase in engineering enrollment. Increases in science and engineering degrees at the master’s level persisted for more than four decades, with accelerated growth in the first half of the 1990s and a leveling off in 1996. Master’s degrees in science and engineering fields expanded from the modest number of 13,500 in 1954 to 93,900 in 1998. The number of doctoral degrees has also increased, rising from 11,570 in 1966 to 27,188 in 1998.23 (See pages 47–52.)

Women have earned more than half of all bachelors’ degrees conferred in the U.S. since 1982, yet they remain underrepresented among those awarded such degrees in science and engineering. Still, there has been a significant increase. In 1966, women accounted for less than 25% of bachelors’ degrees in these fields; in 2000, they accounted for almost 49% of such degrees. While women earned only 2.1% of all bachelors’ degrees in engineering in 1975, in 2000, they earned 18.5% of such degrees, and in the physical sciences, their representation more than doubled, rising from 18.8% to 38.5% during this period. (See page 47.)

Women have earned more than half the master’s degrees conferred in the U.S. since 1981, but as the employment figures indicate, they remain underrepresented among those awarded such degrees in science and engineering. Yet here, too, there has been a significant increase. In 1966, only 13.3% of all masters’ degrees in science and engineering were earned by women; in 1998, women earned almost 41% of such degrees. Meanwhile, women accounted for more than 34% of all doctoral degrees conferred in science and engineering in 1998, up from 8% in 1966. The percentage of women among those receiving doctoral degrees in science and engineering more than quadrupled between 1966 and 1997. (See pages 50-51.)

The ratio of college degrees earned by black students to their college-age population increased from 11 per hundred in 1980 to 18 per hundred in 1996; the ratio for Hispanics increased from 10 per hundred in 1980 to 14 per hundred in 1996. The ratio of science and engineering degrees earned by black students to their college-age populations increased from one per hundred in 1980 to two per hundred in 1996, and the ratio for Hispanics rose slightly from less than two per hundred in 1980 to slightly more than two per hundred in 1996.24

The knowledge of scientists and engineers can be transferred across national borders more easily than many other skills. The U.S. has always attracted scientists and engineers from abroad. A large number of scientists and engineers were born in other countries and came to the U.S. to study and work. In recent years, the foreign-born college graduates became a larger percentage of those in science and engineering jobs (19.3% in 2000, up from 11.2% in 1980).

In 1999, 27% of those with doctorates in science and engineering in the U.S. were foreign born. In fact, 51.5% of all those with doctorates in civil engineering in 1999 were foreign born. Almost one-fifth of those with master’s degrees in science and engineering were born outside the U.S. Even at the bachelor’s degree level, almost 10% of those with degrees were born elsewhere, with the largest percentages of degrees in chemistry (almost 15%), computer sciences (15.2%), and across all engineering fields (14.6%). By region, 57% originated in Asia, 24% in Europe, 13% in Central and South America, 6% in Canada and Oceania, and 4% in Africa. The 1999 data (which are the most recent) on Immigration and Naturalization Service counts of permanent visas issued to immigrants in science and engineering show a small decrease in permanent visas for each science and engineering occupation.

The most recent data shows that the number of doctoral degrees in science and engineering awarded to non-U.S. citizens with permanent visas increased between 1988 and 1995 and decreased between 1995 and 2000. The number of doctoral degrees in science and engineering awarded to non-U.S. citizens with temporary visas increased steadily between 1986 and 1993, fluctuating at a lower level between 1993 and 2000. (See pages 54 and 55.)

Many of those who earn their degrees while here on temporary visas stay on. According to a 2001 report by Michael Finn of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 51% of 1994–95 science and engineering doctorate recipients with temporary visas were still in the U.S. in 1999.25

One highly controversial area in recent years has been the H-1B visa, a guest worker program by which skilled individuals can obtain a visa to work in the United States for up to six years. In October 2000, Congress passed a bill to increase the number of H-1B guest worker visas from 65,000 a year to 195,000 a year for the next three years, plus an undetermined number who will be employed by educational institutions. This increase was primarily in response to aggressive lobbying by high-tech companies who claimed they needed many thousands more computer programmers and software engineers but could not recruit and/or train them from the domestic labor pool. While the increase will affect all professional occupations, it is expected that the importation of guest workers under H-1B will continue to occur mostly in computer-based occupations.

Critics of this increase cite the fact that the professional computer occupations have not exhibited higher than average wage growth, which would indicate a shortage. Furthermore, patterns of wage and recruitment discrimination with regard to gender, race, and age in the industry belie employer claims that they are doing all they can to attract more workers. At the start of the twenty-first century, enrollment in computer science college programs grew by more than 30%. The October 2000 expansion coincided with the dot-coms laying off thousands of high tech workers. Increasingly, observers of the information technology industries are pointing to those factors as indications that the industry seeks workers from overseas to create a surplus labor pool, ameliorate pressures for increased pay, and secure a more docile work force.

In Sum…

Our nation’s economic progress and general well-being depend in considerable measure on the work of scientists, engineers, and technicians. Employment in science and engineering increased dramatically during the second half of the twentieth century. Rapid growth will continue to characterize these occupations: employment opportunities for scientists and engineers are expected to increase by about 44% between 2000 and 2010, almost three times the rate expected for the total labor force. While numbers of technicians and related support occupations are projected to increase by more than 22% during this same period, the number of engineering technicians is expected to increase by 22.5%, and that of science technicians by 48%. The growth in these technical occupations contributes to the increasingly white collar composition of the U.S. labor force.

In addition to experiencing rapid growth, these occupations have been subject to massive change from within. Like many other employed people, scientists, engineers, and technicians confront increasing challenges to their careers, brought about by changing technology, the turbulent world economy, and new methods for organizing and managing their work. Along with other professional and technical workers, more scientists, engineers, and technicians are turning to unions to defend or recapture their professional autonomy and to have a say in the decisions that affect their professional lives. The labor movement must continue and intensify its efforts to meet the challenge of recruiting and representing the technical occupations in this turbulent time

Pamela Wilson
Assistant to the President


Note: This analysis was taken from Current Statistics on Scientists, Engineers and Technical Workers: 2002 Edition. To find out more about ordering the publication, click here.


NOTES:

  1. 1 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Statistical Abstract, 1979; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Vol. 37, No. 1, Table 39.
  2. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies computer engineers under the occupation of scientist.
  3. Hecker, Daniel E., "Occupational Employment Projections to 2010," U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, November 2001.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid.
  6. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2002.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.
  10. This data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ unpublished Table 23. The table does not present information about Asians or Native Americans because the numbers in their survey are too small for accuracy.
  11. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators – 2002.
  12. Jorgensen, Helene and Robert McGarrah, Contingent Workers: Health and Pension Security, AFL-CIO Department of Public Policy, 2001.
  13. Hipple, Steven, "Contingent Work in the Late-1990s," U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, March 2001.
  14. American Chemical Society, Women Chemists 2000, March 2001.
  15. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2000–2001 Edition, January 2000.
  16. Hoffman, Kenneth J., "Analyzing Wage Patterns of Engineers and Scientists," U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Compensation and Working Conditions, Fall 1997.
  17. Steinmeyer, John K. and Kenneth Hoffman, "BRIEF: Scientists’ Earnings," U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Compensation and Working Conditions Online, Vol. 3, No. 1.
  18. Ibid.
  19. National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2000.
  20. Science and Engineering Indicators–2002, op.cit.
  21. AFL-CIO and Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Equal Pay for Working Families, 1999.
  22. Science and Engineering Indicators–2002, op. cit.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Michael G. Finn, The Stay Rate of Foreign Nationals in Science and Engineering, www.opendoorsweb.org

Newsline | About DPE | Affiliates | Public Policy | Programs & Publications
FAQs | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Home

Copyright © 2001 Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO. All rights reserved.