2012 Washington State Marine
Industry Employment &
Compensation Survey:
Manufacturers, Repairers and
Marine Systems
April 2013
Submitted by:
SESRC
Social & Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC)
Puget Sound Division
Washington State University
PO Box 43170
Olympia, Washington 98504-3170
Telephone: (360) 586-9292
Fax: (360) 586-2279
www.sesrc.wsu.edu/PugetSound
sesrc.ps@wsu.edu
2012 Washington State Marine Industry
Employment & Compensation Survey:
Manufacturers, Repairers and Marine Systems
Candiya Mann
April 2013
Social & Economic Sciences Research Center-Puget Sound Division
203 E. 4th Avenue, Suite 521
P.O. Box 43170
Olympia, WA 98504-3170
(360) 586-9292
Fax: (360) 586-2279
SPONSORSHIP
Support for this project was provided by the Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine
Manufacturing and Technology at Skagit Valley College, Whidbey Island Campus (“the Center”),
in collaboration with the Northwest Marine Trade Association (NMTA).
ABOUT SESRC
The Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) at Washington State University is a
recognized leader in the development and conduct of survey research.
SESRC-Puget Sound Division provides technical services and consultation to assist clients in
acquiring data, understanding what data means, and applying that information to solving
problems. The SESRC Puget Sound Division specializes in research design, data collection and
analysis, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The Division also provides interpretive
reports, policy studies, presentations and consulting services directly to individual clients,
organizations and consortia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the management at the Center for their leadership,
coordination, and helpful suggestions. We are also grateful to NMTA for their generous help in
compiling the survey sample and publicizing the survey. Special thanks to Scott Bailey of the
Washington Employment Security Department for conducting the data runs presented in the
Industry Background section of the report. Finally, this project would not have been possible
without the valuable insights contributed by the employers who participated in the survey.
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
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
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
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
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
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
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
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
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: 19902008 ............................................................................................................................................... 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
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2012 Washington State Marine Industry Employment &
Compensation Survey: Manufacturers, Repairers and
Marine Systems
BY: CANDIYA MANN
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER, PUGET SOUND OFFICE
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
APRIL 2013
Every two to three years, the Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine Manufacturing and Technology
at Skagit Valley College commissions a web survey of boat and ship manufacturers and repairers in
Washington State. The initial survey took place in 2007; the second survey was in 2009, and this report
presents the results of the 2012 survey.
The primary purpose of this survey is to gain a better understanding of trends in employment and
compensation within this specific region and industry. The survey covers current employment and
vacancies, forecasted employment and retirements, wages, employment benefits, and training. Within
these topics, survey questions focus on 13 key hourly occupations.1
In 2012, the survey was expanded to include companies focused on marine systems in addition to
manufacturers and repairers. Survey results were analyzed by primary company focus
(manufacturing/repair/marine systems), company size (number of employees), and location (selected
Workforce Development Areas).
Employers contributed information through a web survey in April and May of 2012. The response rate
was 45%, with 113 surveys completed. The very small employers were under-represented in the
respondents. To correct this, the statistical results were weighted by company size so that the reported
results more accurately represent the entire industry.
The 2012 survey results paint the picture of an industry in flux after the dramatic downturn in the
economy. Between 2009 and 2012, the recession affected most of the topics covered by this survey.
Specific findings highlighting the difficulties faced by the industry include the following:
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.
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
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.
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 &
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
iv
Repairers Association (ABBRA). Seventeen percent (17%) supported training through community
and technical college (CTC) programs. Fourteen percent (14%) of the respondents had not
provided any employee training.
Among the companies providing in-house training, many offered more than one type of training.
Over half of these companies offered self-directed training through the internet and/or CDs.
Over one-third provided an on-site classroom with instructors. Over one-quarter of the
companies with in-house training offered self-directed training using paper materials.
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 onequarter (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 METHODOLOGY
The Northwest Center of Excellence for Marine Manufacturing and Technology at Skagit Valley College
(“the Center”) serves as a resource hub for industry trends, best practices, innovative curriculum, and
professional development for the boat and ship building, repair and refit industries of Washington State.
The Center’s mission is to maximize resources by bringing together economic, workforce, education and
industry partners in order to develop highly skilled employees and increase the competitiveness of these
Washington State industries.
Every two to three years, the Center commissions a web survey of boat and ship manufacturers and
repairers in Washington State. The initial survey took place in 2007, and the second survey was
administered in 2009. This report presents the results of the 2012 survey. The next round is scheduled
for 2014. The Social and Economic Sciences Research Center at Washington State University designed
and conducted these surveys.
The purpose of the survey is to create a detailed database of regionally specific economic and workforce
information for this industry. The results are shared with employers, educators, and economic and
workforce development professionals.
The main topics covered are current and projected employment – including vacancies and forecasted
retirements – and wages and benefits. Beginning in 2009, the survey also covered employee training.
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
1. Marine Carpenters
2. Marine Electricians
3. Marine Mechanics
4. Welders
5. Fiberglas Laminators
6. Composite
Laminators
7. Riggers
8. Assemblers
9. Patch and Repair
10. Painters
2009 Occupations
1. Marine Carpenters
2. Marine Electricians
3. Marine Mechanics
4. Steel Welders
5. Aluminum Welders
6. Fiberglas Technicians
Closed Molded
7. Fiberglas Technicians
Open Molded
2012 Occupations
1. Marine Carpenters
2. Marine Electricians
3. Marine Mechanics
4. Steel Welders
5. Aluminum Welders
6. Fiberglas Technicians
Closed Molded
7. Fiberglas Technicians
Open Molded
NA (Removed)
8.
9.
10.
11.
Riggers
Assemblers
Patch and Repair
Painters
NA
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Riggers
Assemblers
Patch and Repair
Painters
Electronics Technician
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
3
No specific instructions were provided on how to select an employee’s primary occupation.
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
4
wage questions, this would mean averaging the wages across all skill levels. Finally, the survey
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
5
Company Characteristics
In 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
6
Figure 2: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution by Company Size: Population and Survey Respondents
2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution by Company Size:
Population and Survey Respondents
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
8%
9%
24%
13%
12%
19%
15%
13%
24%
13%
2007
50+ employees
20 to 49 employees
73%
66%
Unweighted
Survey
Respondents
13%
27%
48%
40%
37%
Population
8%
18%
22%
21%
67%
4%
10%
10 to 19 employees
1 to 9 employees
Population
Unweighted
Survey
Respondents
Population
2009
Unweighted
Survey
Respondents
2012
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
7
Figure 3: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Primary Focus (Repair/Manufacturing/Marine Systems) by Company
Size
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
8
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
Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Thurston
Island, San Juan, Skagit, Whatcom
Snohomish
King
Pierce
Clark, Cowlitz, Skamania, Wahkiakum
Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Okanogan
Kittitas, Klickitat, Yakima
Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Lincoln,
Pend Oreille, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman
Benton, Franklin
Spokane
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Olympic Consortium
Pacific Mountain WDA
Northwest WDA
Snohomish County WDA
Seattle-King County WDA
Pierce County WDA
Southwest Washington WDA
North Central WDA
Tri-County WDA
Eastern Washington WDA
11
12
Benton-Franklin WDA
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
9
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
10
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
11
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 systems
o Diesel power, i.e. marine engines, generator sets, auxiliary power units
o 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
2007, 2009 and 2012 Breakdown by Primary Focus
100%
75%
63%
25%
Manufacturing
49%
42%
50%
28%
22%
14%
Repair
37%
9%
Marine Systems*
23%
13%
Other
0%
2007 Survey
2009 Survey
2012 Survey
*New response option in 2012
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
12
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
13
RESULTS
The 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.
Employment
This 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
14

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
15

Figure 11)

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
16
Figure 11: 2007, 2009 and 2012 Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees
Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees
Full-time
Part-time
2%
3%
6%
98%
97%
94%
2007
2009
2012
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.
“Economy still very weak and not
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.
likely to add significantly to
employees regardless of
qualifications”
- Medium repairer
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
17
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.
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
18
Figure 12: 2012-2014: Forecast Change in Employment and Anticipated Retirements
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
19
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
20
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
21
Figure 14: 2012 Difficulty Filling Vacancies
Figure 15: 2009 Difficulty Filling Vacancies
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
22
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.
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
23

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.
The overall wages are presented in three figures below. First, detailed wages are provided for 2012 (
Figure 16). 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 sideby-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
24
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
25
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
26
Figure 18: Comparisons of 2007, 2009 and 2012 Median Hourly Wages: Entry Level, with Five Years
Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
27
Figure 19: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Employer Size
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
28
$5.00
Marine
Carpenters
Very small*
Small*
Medium
Large*
Fiberglas
Fiberglas
Tech - Closed Tech - Open
Very small
Small
Medium
Large*
Painters
Patch and
Repair
Assemblers
Riggers
* No wages were reported in these categories.
**Only entry-level wages were reported in these categories.
Steel
Welders
Aluminum
Welders
Marine
Mechanics
Marine
Electricians
Very small**
Small**
Medium*
Large**
$10.00
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
$15.00
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
$20.00
Very small
Small
Medium*
Large*
$25.00
Very small
Small**
Medium*
Large
$30.00
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
$35.00
Very small
Small
Medium
Large*
$40.00
Very small
Small
Medium
Large*
2012 Median Hourly Wages by Employer Size:
Entry Level, with Five Years Experience, and Maximum Potential Wage
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
29
Very small*
Small
Medium
Large*
CAD
Electronics
Technicians Technicians
Very small
Small
Medium*
Large*
Figure 20: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Primary Focus
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
30
Figure 21: 2012 Median Hourly Wages by Selected WDA
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
31
Employee Benefits
The 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
Median Percentage that Benefits Add to the Cost of Each Employee
by Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA's
31%
25%
25% 25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
Overall
Primary Focus
Company Size
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
King
Northwest
Olympic/Pacific
Mountain
Large
Medium
Small
Very small
Marine Systems
Repair
Manuf
2012 Survey
8%
2009 Survey
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Selected WDA's
32
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.
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
33
Figure 241617: 2007-2012 Percentage of Companies Offering 401k Plans by Company Size: Marine
Industry Compared to All Industries
2007, 2009 & 2012 Percentage of Companies Offering 401k Plans by Company Size:
Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
2007
2009
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Marine Manufacturing & Repair:
(2007, 2009 & 2012 Survey Data)
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
All Industries: Employee Benefits Survey
Reports, Washington State Employment Security
Department-LMEA, 2008, 2010 and 2012
30%
45%
59%
77%
2007
30%
54%
50%
93%
2009
32%
20%
73%
100%
30%
44%
60%
78%
2012
33%
25%
63%
67%
30%
45%
60%
83%
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.
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
34
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
35
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
Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Percentage of
Companies Offering Programs by Primary Focus,
Company Size, and Selected WDA's
Overall
Primary Focus
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
King
Large
Medium
Company Size
0% 9%
Olympic/Pacific
Mountain
Northwest
22%
0% 0% 0%
Small
11%
Very small
25%
Marine Systems
Repair
9% 0%
Manuf
2012 Survey
2% 9%
2009 Survey
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Selected
WDA's
36
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
37
Figure 28: Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Company Size: Marine Industry
Compared to All Industries
Percentage of Companies Offering Health Insurance by Company Size:
Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
2007
2009
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Marine Manufacturing & Repair
(2007, 2009 & 2012 Survey Data)
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
All Industries: Employee Benefits Survey
Reports, Washington State Employment Security
Department-LMEA, 2008, 2010 and 2012
59%
73%
83%
94%
2007
87%
85%
92%
93%
2009
85%
90%
100%
86%
45%
68%
82%
94%
2012
67%
58%
100%
67%
47%
69%
82%
94%
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
38
Figure 29: Percentage of Health Insurance Premiums Covered by the Employee (Not Including
Dependents) by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
Percentage of Health Insurance Premiums Covered by the Employee by Company Size:
Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
2007
2009
2012
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Marine Manufacturing & Repair
(2007, 2009 & 2012 Survey Data)
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
All Industries: Employee Benefits Survey
Reports, Washington State Employment Security
Department-LMEA, 2008, 2010 and 2012
13%
14%
14%
15%
2007
13%
23%
13%
23%
2009
17%
21%
15%
14%
17%
17%
18%
18%
2012
9%
4%
11%
11%
12%
13%
16%
16%
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
39
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
40
Figure 32) 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
41
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
Percentage of Companies Offering Personal Time Off by
Primary Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA's
100%
75%
71%
57% 53%
50%
67%
50%
47% 41%
67%
70%
64%
50%
37%
25%
Overall
Primary Focus
Company Size
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
King
Northwest
Olympic/Pac Mtn
Large
Medium
Small
Very small
Marine Systems
Repair
Manuf
2012 Survey
2009 Survey
0%
Selected WDA's
42
Figure 32: Percentage of Companies Offering Sick Leave by Primary Focus, Company Size, and
Selected WDA’s
Percentage of Companies Offering Sick Leave by Primary
Focus, Company Size, and Selected WDA's
100%
50%
75%
71%
75%
56%
53%
38%
31%
73%
56%
50% 43%
33%
25%
0%
Overall
Primary Focus
Company Size
King
Northwest
Olympic/Pac Mtn
Large
Medium
Small
Very small
Marine Systems
Repair
Manuf
2012 Survey
2009 Survey
0%
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
2012 Percentage of Companies Offering Paid Vacation, PTO, and Sick Leave
by Company Size: Marine Industry Compared to All Industries
Paid Vacation
Personal Time Off
Sick Leave
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Very
small
Small
Medium
Large
Marine Manufacturing & Repair
(2012 Survey Data)
Very
small
Small
Medium
Large
All Industries:
"2012 Employee Benefits Survey Report",
Washington State Employment Security
Department-LMEA, December 2012
Paid Vacation
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%
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
43
Technology
In 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
44
Training
The 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
Percentage of Companies Offering Each Type of
Training
On-the-job training (OJT)
68%
Factory schools
46%
In-house training (aside from OJT)
Training from non-profit organizations
(ABYC, AMTECH, ABBRA, etc.)
Community and technical college
programs
None
41%
21%
17%
14%
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
45
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
Among Companies Providing In-House Training,
the Percentage Offering Each Type
Self-directed training on the Internet
82%
Self-directed training via CD’s
On-site classroom with instructors
Self-directed training using paper
materials
57%
37%
28%
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
46
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
47
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
respondents stating that each type of training greatly influenced their hiring decisions. Some interesting
findings emerged:
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
48

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
49
Figure 39: Percentage of Respondents Stating that Each Type of Training Greatly Affects Hiring
Decisions
100%
Assemblers
16%
16%
16%
32%
37%
Painters
0%
Electronics
CAD
Technicians Technicians
* No employers provided ratings of the effect of factory, CTC, or nonprofit training on the hiring of marine carpenters.
Figure 40: On the Job Training: Affect on Hiring Decisions by Occupation
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
Patch and
Repair
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
0%
6%
0%
8%
13%
23%
13%
9%
0%
0%
0%
16%
9%
Riggers
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
Aluminum
Welders
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
Steel
Welders
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
15%
Marine
Mechanics
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
0%
0%
0%
0%
Marine
Electricians
44%
57%
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
Fiberglas
Tech
Open
10%
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
Marine
Carpenters*
0%
14%
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
Fiberglas
Tech
Closed
14%
14%
OJT
Factory
CTC
NonProf
28%
36%
54%
54%
59%
50%
50%
50%
63%
31%
37%
51%
63%
65%
75%
84%
100%
Percentage of Respondents Stating that Each Type of Training Greatly Affects Hiring Decisions
50
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
51
Figure 43: Training from Non-Profit Organizations (ABYC, AMTECH, etc.): Affect on Hiring Decisions
by Occupation
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
52
CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
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
53
APPENDIX A: INDUSTRY BACKGROUND
Boat 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
54
Figure 45)
Figure 44: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Payroll: 1990-2011
Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry Payroll:
1990-2011
$300,000,000
2008: $255,546,381
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
2011:
$162,672,342
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$0
Source: Washington Employment Security Department,
Labor Market & Economic Analysis Branch, Vancouver Office
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
55
Figure 45: Washington State Boat Building and Boat Repair Industry Total Employment: 1990-2008
Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry
Total Employment: 1990-2011
7,000
6,215
6,000
5,000
3,650
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Source: Washington Employment Security Department,
Labor Market & Economic Analysis Branch, Vancouver Office
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%.
Figure 46: Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry, Percent Change in Number
of Companies 2008-2011 by Company Size
Washington State Boat and Ship Building and Repair Industry
Percent Change in Number of Companies
2008-2011 by Company Size
45%
7%
-6%
-24%
No Employees
Very small
(1-9 employees)
Small
Medium
(10-19 employees) (20-49 employees)
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
-52%
Large
(50+ employees)
56
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Marine carpenters
Marine electricians
Marine mechanics
Aluminum welders
Steel welders
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
57
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Fiberglas/composite technicians (closed mold)
Fiberglas/composite technicians (open mold)
Riggers (electrical/mechanical/sailboat)
Assemblers
Patch & repair (i.e. patch & detail)
Painters
Electronics Technician
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
58
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
59
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 Fulltime
Employees
Current
number of
Part-time
Employees
Number of Fulltime Employees
in 2014
Number of
Part-time
Employees in
2014
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
60
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
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
61
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
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
62
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
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
63
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
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
64
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
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
65
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
66
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
67
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
68
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
 Don’t know
Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
69
Q36. How effective have you found the following types of training to be?
Very effective
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:
Somewhat
effective
Not at all
effective
Don’t know
























Washington State Marine Industry Employment and Compensation
70
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
Fiberglas/composite
technicians (closed
mold)
Fiberglas/composite
technicians (open
mold)
Riggers
Assemblers
Patch & repair
Painters
Electronics Technician
CAD Technician
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
71
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
72
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
73