Featured Stories
IDB Group Convenes New Advisory Council of Global Leaders to Advance Development in the Region
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Inter-American Development Bank issued the following news release:
* * *
IDB Group Convenes New Advisory Council of Global Leaders to Advance Development in the Region
September 24, 2026
NEW YORK - The Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) convened its newly established Advisory Council on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, bringing together global public- and private-sector leaders and experts to help shape strategies to advance development in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Established this year as an external source of strategic
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Inter-American Development Bank issued the following news release:
* * *
IDB Group Convenes New Advisory Council of Global Leaders to Advance Development in the Region
September 24, 2026
NEW YORK - The Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) convened its newly established Advisory Council on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, bringing together global public- and private-sector leaders and experts to help shape strategies to advance development in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Established this year as an external source of strategicinsight, the Advisory Council is designed to help the IDB Group anticipate emerging trends, identify opportunities for the region, and strengthen engagement with influential stakeholders around the world. Members meet periodically with IDB Group leadership and contribute their expertise throughout the year.
The members of the Advisory Council are:
* Azucena Arbeleche, Chair, former Minister of Economy and Finance, Uruguay
* Marcelo Claure, Partner and Co-Chairman, Brightstar Capital Partners
* Ivan Duque, former President of Colombia
* Arminio Fraga, Founding Partner, Gavea Investimentos
* Jose M. Linares, Senior Executive Vice-President, Banco Santander, and Global Head of Santander Corporate & Investment Banking (Santander CIB)
* Rob Mosbacher, Chairman, Mosbacher Energy Company (MEC)
* General Laura Richardson, former Commander of the United States Southern Command
* Sir Andrew Steer, Distinguished Research Professor of the Practice, Georgetown University and the London School of Economics
* Jose Maria Vinals, former Group Chairman, Standard Chartered PLC, and former Chairman, Standard Chartered Bank
* * *
About the IDB Group
The Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) is the leading source of financing and knowledge for improving lives in Latin America and the Caribbean. It comprises the IDB, which works with the region's public sector and enables the private sector; IDB Invest, which directly supports private companies and projects; and IDB Lab, which spurs entrepreneurial innovation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.iadb.org/en/news/idb-group-convenes-new-advisory-council-global-leaders-advance-development-region
HUD Announces Multiple Fair Housing Act Charges, Cuts Biden Backlog by 46%
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued the following news release:
* * *
HUD Announces Multiple Fair Housing Act Charges, Cuts Biden Backlog by 46%
Violations including Disability, Sexual Harassment, and Familial Status Discrimination
September 24, 2026
WASHINGTON - HUD today announced nine recent charges of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, reflecting ongoing enforcement of federal fair housing protections by HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). While vigorously investigating and prosecuting cases of actual unlawful
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued the following news release:
* * *
HUD Announces Multiple Fair Housing Act Charges, Cuts Biden Backlog by 46%
Violations including Disability, Sexual Harassment, and Familial Status Discrimination
September 24, 2026
WASHINGTON - HUD today announced nine recent charges of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, reflecting ongoing enforcement of federal fair housing protections by HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). While vigorously investigating and prosecuting cases of actual unlawfuldiscrimination, FHEO continues to reduce its inventory of pending Fair Housing Act (Title VIII) cases inherited from the Biden administration.
Since September 1, 2025, FHEO has reduced the Biden backlog of pending Title VIII complaints by 46%.
The nine charges of discrimination were released within the past six months. A fact sheet detailing the recent charges is available here.
"HUD is efficiently delivering relief for victims of housing discrimination while clearing out the indefensible case backlog left behind by the Biden administration," said Secretary Turner. "Together, these charges show the Department's unrelenting efforts to protect and enforce the civil rights of all Americans."
Of the nine recent charges, four involve alleged discrimination based on familial status, including cases involving discriminatory rental practices and terms and conditions affecting families with children. Three charges involve alleged disability discrimination, including allegations that housing providers failed to provide reasonable accommodations, and one charge involves allegations of sexual harassment.
"Contrary to left-wing hysteria and partisan accusations divorced from reality, the Department's record is clear: We are vigorously enforcing the Fair Housing Act to protect all Americans from invidious discrimination, and we will continue to do so without exception," said Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Craig Trainor.
HUD inherited an inefficient case system from the Biden administration that delayed or politicized investigations and enforcement actions. In a 2024 report, HUD's Office of Inspector General found that the Biden administration failed to close approximately 70% of cases within the 100-day timeline required by law.
The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability.
FHEO enforces the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Violence Against Women Act, among other civil rights laws.
If you believe you have experienced housing discrimination, you can file a complaint (https://www.hud.gov/reporthousingdiscrimination).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-26-069
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Risk Group Head Nistor Issues Remarks at Risk Live North America Conference
NEW YORK, Sept. 25 -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued the following remarks by Mihaela Nistor, chief risk officer and head of the risk group:
* * *
Forging A Resilient Path
September 24, 2026
Remarks at the Risk Live North America Conference, New York City
As prepared for delivery
Good morning, everyone. It's great to be here again, and to navigate with you the changing landscape of our profession.
Operational risk used to be the function everyone forgot about until something broke. Necessary, but rarely central to strategic conversation.
That has changed, and it has changed
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Sept. 25 -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued the following remarks by Mihaela Nistor, chief risk officer and head of the risk group:
* * *
Forging A Resilient Path
September 24, 2026
Remarks at the Risk Live North America Conference, New York City
As prepared for delivery
Good morning, everyone. It's great to be here again, and to navigate with you the changing landscape of our profession.
Operational risk used to be the function everyone forgot about until something broke. Necessary, but rarely central to strategic conversation.
That has changed, and it has changedbecause the nature of the risk itself has changed. And one of the biggest drivers of the change is artificial intelligence (AI).
Today I want to talk about AI from a slightly different angle. Not what AI can do, but what happens to the institution when AI does it.
Because the gap between technological acceleration and institutional adaptation is not simply a technology risk. It is an operational risk. And it belongs to us.
But before I begin, I should note that my remarks reflect my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System.
Institutional Adaptation
Most conversations about AI and the workforce default to a simple binary: It will either create jobs, or it will destroy them. That framing is not particularly useful for the people in this room, because it skips past the part we actually manage.
I think about three aspects together: task exposure, deployment friction, and organizational redesign.
Task exposure tells us what can change. Deployment friction tells us how fast. Organizational redesign determines what happens next.
A task can be technically exposed to automation and still remain economically, legally, or operationally difficult to automate. Exposure is not displacement. Capability is not deployment. The distance between those two things is exactly where operational risk lives.
That distance is also where institutional fragility lives.
Large, systemically important institutions absorb technology slowly, often for very good reasons. Deployment is shaped not just by what the model can technically do, but by regulatory constraints, legal liability, legacy technology, data quality, workforce trust, cyber risk, low tolerance for operational failure, and leadership capability. We require governance, controls, explainability, and accountability.
Much of that friction is protective, so slowness itself is not the problem. The problem is that internally institutions do not move at one speed.
A business unit can automate junior analytical work before the organization redesigns the jobs that depend on that work. A function can deploy autonomous agents before governance fully understands the resulting concentration of decision-making. A process can become dependent on AI before resilience teams have designed a credible fallback.
Technology, controls, operating models, governance and workforce capabilities can all move at different speeds.
That asynchrony is where fragility can emerge.
Organizational Fragility
Let me give you one example.
Historically, institutions trained future experts through repetitive, lower-level work. Junior analysts built the reports. Junior underwriters reviewed the files. Junior control testers walked the process maps line by line. None of us particularly mourned the manual work. But the work had another purpose: It was the training mechanism for judgment.
You learned which numbers looked wrong. Which control worked differently in practice than it did on paper. Which dependency mattered. When something small was actually telling you something big. When to escalate. And eventually, when the policy was no longer enough.
AI is increasingly capable of absorbing a meaningful share of exactly this layer of work. In the short term that looks attractive. We automate routine tasks. We reduce cost. We increase output. And here is the paradox: We may gain measurable short-term efficiencies while quietly weakening the pipelines that produce our next generation of leaders with experienced judgment. That erosion will not show up in a loss event. It will not trip a control. It will show up five to seven years from now as thinner leadership benches, weaker institutional memory, and a workforce that has lost the habit of independent problem solving because the scaffolding was automated out from under it before it had finished doing its job.
Without intention, we can transfer risk forward in time.
That is the new organizational fragility we as risk managers must be attuned to. It is silent, it is slow, and it is exactly the kind of risk existing frameworks are not built to detect, because it does not fail today. It fails in the future, on someone else's watch.
Efficiency is Not Resilience
AI can make an institution more efficient while simultaneously creating new forms of fragility. We can remove layers of coordination. Increase spans of control. Reduce manual processes. Concentrate expertise. Depend more heavily on automated systems. Each decision may be perfectly rational on its own. Collectively, they can diminish the resilience of the institution.
We should also distinguish efficiency, robustness, and resilience.
Efficiency is doing normal work with fewer resources. Robustness is continuing to perform when something goes wrong. Resilience is the capacity to adapt when what goes wrong is something we did not anticipate. That last capability depends heavily on human judgement, and it takes years to build. We should be very careful about optimizing away the mechanisms that create it.
But there is a genuinely resilient path ahead.
A Deliberate Investment
There is a useful historical analogy here. When the spreadsheets entered accounting and finance, many expected them to eliminate work. Instead, the cost of analysis collapsed, and forecasting, budgeting, and financial planning expanded, because analytical capability that used to be expensive suddenly became cheap enough to use everywhere.
AI is not a spreadsheet, and history doesn't guarantee the same outcome. But the analogy contains an important lesson: Lower unit cost can expand demand. If we treat AI as a way to expand the volume and depth of judgment we can apply--for example, forecasting more scenarios, validating more models, monitoring more continuously--we may find that the demand for skilled risk judgment does not shrink, it grows. The organizations that will be resilient are the ones that invest deliberately in building AI fluency into their workforce now and preserving the developmental pathways that create judgment, rather than assuming those pathways will take care of themselves.
That is the difference between fragility and resiliency in one sentence: Fragility is what happens when adoption outruns institutional judgment, and resiliency is what happens when we build the workforce's judgment on purpose, in parallel with adoption, instead of hoping it survives by accident.
The Need to Stress Test
So, what does that mean for operational risk?
First, I think we should begin stress-testing not just the technology, but the institution around it. Ask ourselves the question: What human capability must we deliberately preserve even when technology makes that capability look economically inefficient under normal conditions?
Second, we have a set of medium-term structural risks that deserve a permanent place on our risk radar: human capital erosion that will result in the thinning of the leadership bench; AI embedded across third parties that will create dependencies that do not map into traditional vendor-risk frameworks; and a geographic and skills mismatch that will widen, as workers do not smoothly convert into the domains experiencing shortages.
Third, there is a category I would ask you to treat as strategic stress scenarios rather than forecasts, because the timing is genuinely uncertain, but the exposure is not. I call these acceleration pathways.
The first pathway is the convergence of AI with robotics, which could gradually erode the protection that physical, unstructured work has historically enjoyed. The second is the rise of autonomous agents coordinating workflows with less human intervention, which would materially change the ratio between human supervision and output, a ratio much of our governance and control structure currently assumes stays roughly constant. The third is infrastructure concentration: the possibility that compute, energy, and semiconductor capacity concentrate economic and geopolitical influence in a small number of hands, creating new asymmetries that look very different from traditional counterparty or concentration risk.
None of these are certain. We do not need to predict exactly how these technologies develop. All of them are the kind of uncertain but highly consequential scenarios that this room exists to stress test before the risk becomes real.
The Central Challenge
As you move into today's sessions, you will hear about how AI is actually being deployed and governed, how new technologies are being absorbed under real institutional constraints, and how our operating models might change over the next several years. I would ask you to carry one question through these conversations: What happens to the institution when the technology succeeds? Not only when it fails.
The central challenge in front of us is not whether AI is powerful. It clearly is. The central challenge is whether we, as institutions and as a profession, can adapt fast enough to absorb it without quietly hollowing out the judgment and human capability we will need on the other side. That is not a technology question. It is an operational risk question, and it is ours as risk leaders to own.
Thank you, and let's get started.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2026/nis260924
FDA Recall Notice: Galil Importing Corp Recalls Lior Cinnamon Ground Seasoning Due to Elevated Lead Levels
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration issued the following recall notice:
* * *
Galil Importing Corp Recalls Lior Cinnamon Ground Seasoning Due to Elevated Lead Levels
Summary
Company Announcement Date: September 24, 2026
FDA Publish Date: September 24, 2026
Product Type: Food & Beverages
Contaminants
Reason for Announcement: Potential to be contaminated with elevated levels of lead
Company Name: Galil Importing Corp
Brand Name: Lior
Product Description: Ground cinnamon
Company Announcement
Galil Importing Corp of Hauppauge,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration issued the following recall notice:
* * *
Galil Importing Corp Recalls Lior Cinnamon Ground Seasoning Due to Elevated Lead Levels
Summary
Company Announcement Date: September 24, 2026
FDA Publish Date: September 24, 2026
Product Type: Food & Beverages
Contaminants
Reason for Announcement: Potential to be contaminated with elevated levels of lead
Company Name: Galil Importing Corp
Brand Name: Lior
Product Description: Ground cinnamon
Company Announcement
Galil Importing Corp of Hauppauge,New York is recalling Lior Cinnamon Ground Seasoning because it has the potential to be contaminated with elevated levels of lead. Short term exposures to very low levels of lead may not elicit any symptoms. It is possible that increased blood lead levels may be the only apparent sign of lead exposure. Additional signs and symptoms of lead exposure are more likely with acute exposure to higher levels of lead or chronic exposure to lead. While lead can affect nearly every bodily system, its effects depend upon the amount and duration of lead exposure and age/ body weight. If a child is exposed to enough lead for a protracted period of time (e.g., weeks to months) permanent damage to the central nervous system may occur. This can result in learning disorders, developmental defects, and other longterm health problems.
Lior Cinnamon Ground Seasoning (UPC 794711005484) was distributed to retail stores, grocery stores, delis, and supermarkets located in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida & Illinois between 11/18/2025 and 09/07/2026.
The product is packaged in 90 g transparent plastic containers (case pk of 6units). The lot code GAP11304 can be found on the side of the container under the ingredient line.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
The recall was the result of a sample collected and analyzed by Maryland Department of Health (MDH) that revealed the product contained elevated levels of lead.
Galil Importing Corp immediately initiated a voluntary recall and is notifying customers to stop distribution and sale of the affected product and place remaining inventory on hold.
The company has begun a supplier investigation, and implemented enhanced testing and supplier verification measures to prevent a recurrence.
Consumers should not consume the product and should either discard it or return it to the place of purchase for a refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company Galil Importing Corp on 1-516-496-7400 M-F 9a-5p (ET).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/galil-importing-corp-recalls-lior-cinnamon-ground-seasoning-due-elevated-lead-levels
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Aitjunz 8-Drawer Dressers
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Aitjunz 8-Drawer Dressers
Hazard: The recalled dressers are unstable if they are not anchored to the wall, posing tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in risks of serious injuries or death to children. The dressers violate the mandatory safety standards as required by the STURDY Act.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: September 24, 2026
Units: About 25,073
Consumer Contact: Aitjunz at 986-305-9671 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at recall.aitjunz@outlook.com
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Aitjunz 8-Drawer Dressers
Hazard: The recalled dressers are unstable if they are not anchored to the wall, posing tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in risks of serious injuries or death to children. The dressers violate the mandatory safety standards as required by the STURDY Act.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: September 24, 2026
Units: About 25,073
Consumer Contact: Aitjunz at 986-305-9671 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at recall.aitjunz@outlook.comor online at https://aitjunzrecall.pages.dev for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Aitjunz 8-Drawer Dressers. The recalled dressers come in black, white, brown, oak and cream. The dressers have eight drawers and are made from wood. They measure 15.55 inches wide, 55.11 inches long, 30.78 inches tall and weigh 129 pounds. SKU "LDQMFJ8D-BR," "LDQMFJ8D-CM," "LDQMFJ8D-WH," "LDQMFJ8D-BK," or "LDQMFJ8D-NA" is printed on the product packaging.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled dressers immediately if they are not anchored to the wall and place them in an area that children cannot access. Consumers will be asked to contact yuyitop at recall.aitjunz@outlook.com to receive a free retrofit kit containing counterweight blocks with installation instructions.
Incidents/Injuries: CPSC has received one report of a tip-over. No injuries have been reported.
Sold Online At: Amazon.com, Wayfair, TEMU, and Walmart from May 2025 through July 2026 for between $230 and $270.
Manufacturer(s): Dongguan Meiying Sen Smart Home Co., Ltd., of China
Retailer: Maizhe International Trade Co., Ltd., dba yuyitop, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-794
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Yuyitop-Recalls-Aitjunz-8-Drawer-Dressers-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Tip-Over-and-Entrapment-Hazards-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Clothing-Storage-Units
Bureau of Reclamation Finalizes Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of Cachuma Project Facilities
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation issued the following news release:
* * *
Reclamation Finalizes Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of Cachuma Project Facilities
New contract ensures continued reliable service and stewardship of critical water infrastructure.
Sep 24, 2026
FRESNO, Calif. -- The Bureau of Reclamation announces the execution of the amended contract with the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (Contract No. 14 06 200 5222RC), dated Sept. 24, 2026, for the operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Transferred Project Works.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation issued the following news release:
* * *
Reclamation Finalizes Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of Cachuma Project Facilities
New contract ensures continued reliable service and stewardship of critical water infrastructure.
Sep 24, 2026
FRESNO, Calif. -- The Bureau of Reclamation announces the execution of the amended contract with the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (Contract No. 14 06 200 5222RC), dated Sept. 24, 2026, for the operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Transferred Project Works.
This executed contract formalizes the Board's continuing role in operating Reclamation owned facilities that support regional water delivery and community services.
Under the executed contract, the Board will continue to operate and maintain Reclamation owned facilities associated with the Cachuma Project, ensuring safe, reliable, and consistent water supply operations. The agreement upholds Reclamation's federal oversight while reaffirming the ongoing partnership.
For more information visit the South-Central California Area Office website.
* * *
The Bureau of Reclamation is a federal agency under the U.S. Department of the Interior and is the nation's largest wholesale water supplier and second largest producer of hydroelectric power. Our facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation opportunities, and environmental benefits.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/news-release/5417
BLS Issues Report on Employee Tenure in 2026
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- Employee Tenure in 2026 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics - Sept. 24, 2026 (11 pages)
* * *
The median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer was 4.1 years in January 2026, up from 3.9 years in January 2024, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Chief Evaluation Office sponsored the January 2026 survey to collect information on employee tenure. Since 1996, these surveys have been conducted biennially in January as a supplement to the Current
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- Employee Tenure in 2026 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics - Sept. 24, 2026 (11 pages)
* * *
The median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer was 4.1 years in January 2026, up from 3.9 years in January 2024, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Chief Evaluation Office sponsored the January 2026 survey to collect information on employee tenure. Since 1996, these surveys have been conducted biennially in January as a supplement to the CurrentPopulation Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households that provides information on the labor force status of the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over. The questions about employee tenure measure how long workers had been with their current employer at the time of the survey. A number of factors can affect median tenure of workers, including changes in the age profile among workers, as well as changes in the number of hires and separations. For further information about the CPS, see the Technical Note in this news release.
Demographic Characteristics
In January 2026, median employee tenure (the point at which half of all workers had more tenure and half had less tenure) for men was 4.3 years, up from 4.2 years in January 2024. For women, median tenure was 4.0 years in January 2026, up from the median of 3.6 years in January 2024.
Median employee tenure was generally higher among older workers than younger ones. For example, the median tenure of workers ages 55 to 64 (9.6 years) was more than three times that of workers ages 25 to 34 (3.0 years). (See table 1.)
Among men age 25 years and over, 31.1 percent of wage and salary workers had 10 years or more of tenure with their current employer in January 2026, higher than the figure for women (29.0 percent). A larger proportion of older workers than younger workers had 10 years or more of tenure. For example, among workers ages 60 to 64, 52.6 percent had been employed for at least 10 years with their current employer in January 2026, compared with 20.3 percent of those ages 35 to 39. (See table 2.)
In January 2026, the share of wage and salary workers with a year or less of tenure with their current employer was 20.6 percent, down from the proportion in January 2024 (22.2 percent). This short-tenured group includes new hires, job losers who found new jobs during the previous year, and workers who had voluntarily changed employers during the year. Younger workers were more likely than older workers to be short-tenured employees. For example, in January 2026, 74.1 percent of 16- to 19-year-olds had tenure of 12 months or less with their current employer, compared with 9.2 percent of workers ages 55 to 64. (See table 3.)
Among the major race and ethnicity groups, 19.8 percent of White workers and 17.3 percent of Asian workers had been with their current employer for a year or less in 2026. The percentages of short-tenured workers who were Black or Hispanic were higher, at 25.0 percent and 24.2 percent, respectively. (See table 3.)
Among women age 25 and over, those with less than a high school diploma had lower median tenure (4.1 years) in January 2026 than associate degree holders (4.7 years) and college graduates (4.9 years). For men age 25 and over, the median tenure for workers with less than a high school diploma was 4.7 years, less than the median for those with an associate degree (5.3 years) and college graduates (5.2 years). (See table 4.)
Industry
In January 2026, wage and salary workers in the public sector had a median tenure of 5.6 years, considerably higher than the median for private-sector employees (3.9 years). One factor behind this difference is age, as government workers tend to be older on average than those in the private sector. Within the public sector, federal government employees had a higher median tenure at 7.0 years than state (5.4 years) and local government (5.4 years) employees. (See table 5.)
Within the private sector, workers in financial activities (5.0 years); mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (4.9 years); manufacturing (4.9 years); and information (4.9 years) had the highest tenure among major industries in January 2026. By contrast, workers in leisure and hospitality had the lowest median tenure (2.4 years). These differences in tenure reflect many factors, one of which is varying age distributions across the industries; workers in the major industries with the highest tenure tend to be older than those in leisure and hospitality.
Occupation
Among the major occupation groups, workers in management, professional, and related occupations had the highest median tenure in January 2026 (4.9 years). Within this group, employees with jobs in management occupations (6.1 years) had the longest tenure. Workers in service occupations, who are generally younger than people employed in management, professional, and related occupations, had the lowest median tenure (2.9 years). Among employees working in service occupations, workers in food preparation and serving related occupations (2.2 years) and personal care and service occupations (2.8 years) had the lowest median tenure. (See table 6.)
* * *
Technical Note
The data in this news release were collected through a supplement to the January 2026 Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS, which is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is a monthly survey of about 60,000 eligible households that provides information on the labor force status, demographics, and other characteristics of the nation's civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over.
The January 2026 CPS supplement, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, obtained information on worker displacement and workers' tenure with their current employer. The data on worker displacement are online at www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#displaced.
Updated population controls for the CPS are introduced annually with the release of the January data. Additional information about population controls is available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#pop.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Reliability of the estimates
Statistics based on the CPS are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample, rather than the entire population, is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the true population values they represent. The component of this difference that occurs because samples differ by chance is known as sampling error, and its variability is measured by the standard error of the estimate. There is about a 90-percent chance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by no more than 1.6 standard errors from the true population value because of sampling error. BLS analyses are generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence.
The CPS data also are affected by nonsampling error. Nonsampling error can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample, inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information, and errors made in the collection or processing of the data.
Information about the reliability of data from the CPS and guidance on estimating standard errors is available at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#reliability.
Concepts and questions
Employee tenure is a measure of how long wage and salary workers had been with their current employer at the time of the survey. Many of the estimates shown in this report are medians; the median is the point at which half of all workers had more tenure and half had less tenure. Data refer to the sole or principal job of full- and part-time workers.
Wage and salary workers receive wages, salaries, commissions, tips, payment in kind, or piece rates. The group includes employees in both the private and public sectors but excludes all self-employed people, both those with incorporated businesses as well as those with unincorporated businesses.
In the CPS supplement, questions on tenure were asked of all employed people. The main question was: "How long has ... been working continuously for (fill in name of present employer)?"
_____ Days
_____ Weeks
_____ Months
_____ Years
For responses of "1 year" or "2 years," a follow-up question was asked: "Could you please give the exact number of months?"
The purpose of the follow-up question is to obtain more precise information on workers who had been with their current employer for a relatively short time. This follow-up question was included for the first time in the February 1996 CPS supplement on worker displacement and tenure. CPS supplements that obtained information on tenure in January of 1983, 1987, and 1991 did not include the follow-up question. In those surveys, responses of 1 year or more could be coded only as the nearest full year, and responses of less than a year were coded as the nearest full month. Currently, the 2-year category includes 24 to 29 months, and the 3-year category includes 2.5 to 3.5 years.
Prior to January 1983, CPS supplements on tenure asked wage and salary workers, "When did ... start working at (his/her) present job?" For wage and salary workers, the meaning of the term "job" is ambiguous. For example, a worker who had been employed at a particular company for 10 years and had been promoted to a managerial position 1 year prior to the survey may have been counted as having 10 years or 1 year of tenure, depending on whether the respondent interpreted the question to mean tenure with the current employer or tenure in the managerial position. To rectify this ambiguity, the wording of the question was changed in January 1983 to specify the length of time a worker had been with his or her current employer. The change resulted in a break in historical comparability.
Interpreting tenure data
Data on tenure have been used as a gauge of employment security, with some observers regarding increases in tenure as a sign of improving security and decreasing tenure as a sign of deteriorating security. However, there are limitations to using the data in this way. For example, during recessions or other periods of declining job security, median tenure and the proportion of workers with long tenure could rise if less-senior workers are more likely to lose their jobs than are workers with longer tenure. During periods of economic growth, median tenure and the proportion of workers with long tenure could fall if more job opportunities are available for new entrants to the workforce and experienced workers have more opportunities to change employers and take better jobs. Tenure also could rise under improving economic conditions, however, as fewer layoffs occur and good job matches develop between workers and employers.
A changing age distribution among workers would also affect median tenure. Since older workers are more likely to have long tenure with their current employer than younger workers, aging baby boomers in the workforce would provide upward pressure on overall median tenure.
* * *
Table 1. Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by age and sex, selected years, 2016-2026
Table 2. Percent of employed wage and salary workers 25 years and over who had 10 years or more of tenure with their current employer by age and sex, selected years, 2016-2026
Table 3. Distribution of employed wage and salary workers by tenure with current employer, age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, January 2026
Table 4. Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers 25 years and over by educational attainment, sex, and age, January 2026
Table 5. Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by industry, selected years, 2016-2026
Table 5. Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by industry, selected years, 2016-2026 -- Continued
Table 6. Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by occupation, selected years, 2016-2026
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/tenure.pdf
