DC VELOCITY's annual salary survey reveals that logistics/supply chain professionals are logging marathon hours on the job. But are they treated right?
Karen Bachrach brings more than two decades' worth of magazine editing and production experience to DC VELOCITY. A veteran of the supply chain field, she has worked at such publications as Purchasing and Logistics Management. She was also part of the launch team behind Supply Chain Management Review, serving as the managing editor from 1997 through 2002.
If it feels like you and your colleagues are working longer and harder these days, it's probably not your imagination. In the logistics and supply chain world, the 40-hour workweek is clearly a thing of the past. Only one in five of the readers who took part in DC VELOCITY's third annual salary survey worked 45 hours or less during the average week. A whopping 72 percent said they routinely logged somewhere between 46 and 60 hours a week (including time spent working outside the office). Another 9 percent appear to be stuck on a frenetic work treadmill that rarely shuts down; they're spending more than 60 hours a week on the job.
It's not just harried executives who are tethered to their work. The same thing is happening down on the DC floor among supervisors, operations managers, and shipping/receiving coordinators. If you haven't seen it in your own operation yet, chances are you will. The marathon workweeks are being reported across all industries—from food and grocery to lumber and wood products. They're being logged in companies of all sizes. And they're taking hold in facilities from coast to coast.
What's behind the epidemic of long work hours? It's partly that people in this field simply have more to do. Seventy-one percent of the 1,230 survey respondents reported that the number of functions they manage has increased over the past three years. (Another 25 percent said their responsibilities had stayed the same, and 4 percent reported a decrease.) The typical reader is no longer responsible for just, say, transportation management or fleet operations. He or she is likely overseeing warehouse/ DC operations or import/export activities as well. On top of that, professionals in this field typically manage a lot of people; 63 percent of the survey respondents have five or more direct reports.
It seems clear enough that readers are working hard for the money, but are they treated right? Our survey didn't measure job satisfaction, so it's tough to say. But if compensation is any indication, logistics and supply chain professionals have little to complain about. Our survey showed that the average salary was comfortably in the six figures—$105,834, to be precise. The median salary was somewhat lower, at $89,000. But that's still more than two and a half times the median U.S. salary, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics put at $33,634 in 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available).
As for salary trends, 78 percent saw their salaries increase in the past year, 19 percent said their pay had stayed the same, and 3 percent reported that they had taken a hit in salary. The respondents whose pay had risen reported an average increase of 9.6 percent over the previous year, which easily outpaced the 4.4 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index during the same period. We should note here that the pay increases reflected more than just annual raises. Two-thirds of the respondents reported that at least some percentage of their total compensation was based on performance.
It's all about the title
Given the broad range of titles and responsibilities among our survey respondents (see sidebar), it's probably no surprise that the latest study found a significant range in salaries. The highestpaid respondent, the president of a company in the wholesale/retail sector, earned $955,000. The lowest earner, a supervisor working in the pharmaceuticals field, brought home $25,000.
That $930,000 differential is less a reflection of pay scales in the wholesale/retail and pharmaceutical sectors than a reflection of the respondents' titles and responsibilities. When it comes to salaries, it's not what you do—or where you live or even what you know—that matters. It's what you're called. As our salary surveys have consistently shown, job title is the biggest factor in determining what you earn.
So which titles bring the highest pay? This year, it was the senior vice presidents who topped the salary charts. The median salary for the senior VPs who participated in our survey was $200,000—11 percent higher than the median salary of those next in line, corporate officers. Those corporate officers, in turn, made $20,000 more than executive vice presidents, who made $22,000 more than "plain" vice presidents. Presidents and directors came next, with median salaries of $120,000 and $110,000, respectively.
At that point, the gap began to widen. Managers made $35,000 less than directors, and supervisors earned $20,000 less than managers. Exhibit 1 shows the median salary and average salary for each title (we've used the median numbers, rather than the averages, as the basis for comparison because they are less likely to be skewed by outliers, or statistical extremes).
By the numbers
Job title may reign supreme, but there are still many other factors that influence how much a given logistics or supply chain professional makes. Where you work (geographic region), how much schooling you've had, and time spent in the trenches typically have a significant effect on salaries.
Take geography, for instance. As Exhibit 2 shows, there was wide variation in the median salaries reported in the different regions of the country. This year, the highest median salary was found in the Mid-Atlantic states, where the median pay was $104,000. From there, the median salary dropped by $13,000 to $91,000, which was reported in the West. Managers working in the Lower 48 did better than their counterparts in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the median salary was $62,000. The lowest median salary of all, $56,250, was reported by respondents working outside North America.
As you might expect, our survey also found a strong correlation between earnings and education. As Exhibit 3 shows, the median salary for respondents with only a highschool diploma was $71,500. The professionals at the other end of the scale, those who have earned a doctorate, take home 50 percent more, with a median salary of $110,000.
Experience in the field also counts when it comes to earnings (see Exhibit 4). The median salary of newcomers to the field (those with five or fewer years of experience in logistics) was $66,500. Those at the other end of the range (respondents with more than 25 years' experience) command a significant premium for their expertise. With a median salary of $102,000, the veterans out-earned the newcomers by a little over 50 percent.
Mind the gap
What other factors have the potential to affect salary? Our survey showed that a respondent's age and gender, the size of the company he or she works for, and his or her tenure with the current employer can play a role.
Take age, for example. It will probably come as no surprise that median salaries increased with age—but only up to a point. As Exhibit 5 shows, that point occurs somewhere around age 60. The median salary for respondents aged 55 to 60 was the same ($100,000) as it was for those over 60. Our survey also revealed a yawning salary gap between respondents who are under 35 and their elders. The median salary for the younger workers was $69,635; the median salaries for the other groups ranged from $90,000 to $100,000.
Just as younger workers lag behind their older counterparts when it comes to paychecks, females working in the field lag behind males. As Exhibit 6 shows, the gap in median salaries this year was 25 percent. (That may indicate that women are gaining on men; last year's survey showed a gap of 31 percent.) The salary gap seems to be at least partly a matter of experience. The female survey respondents have less experience than the males on average: 51 percent of the women have 15 years' experience or less, compared to 46 percent of the men. Similarly, 21 percent of the men who responded have more than 25 years' experience in logistics, compared to 8 percent of the women.
As Exhibit 7 shows, our survey also found a correlation between salaries and company size. As you might expect, the bigger the company, the higher the salary—with one exception. The median salary for companies with 1,001 to 5,000 employees was slightly lower than the median salary at companies one step down in size, those with 501 to 1,000 employees.
As for salaries by the respondents' tenure with their current companies, our survey found only a very weak correlation. As Exhibit 8 shows, the median salaries for employees with six to 20 years' tenure with a company clustered in the low $90,000s. From there, the median salary jumped to $100,000 for those with 21 to 25 years' tenure, but dipped slightly for employees who had been with the company for more than 25 years.
Charting a course
In the end, of course, there are countless other variables that might enter into any given person's salary—job performance, departmental budget, and perks and benefits, to name a few. But generally speaking, the primary factors in determining salary are title, geographic region, education, experience, age, company size, and gender.
What does that mean for those eager to boost their earnings? Well, there's not much you can do about your age or gender. But if you suspect your location or a lack of schooling might be holding you back, you can think about moving to a different part of the country or going back to school.
But be careful what you wish for. A bigger paycheck will almost certainly be accompanied by more responsibilities and longer hours. In the logistics and supply chain world, there's no getting around it: You'll work hard for the money.
about our survey
DC VELOCITY's third annual salary study was based on the responses of 1,230 readers who completed a 20-question survey during the first half of February. Of those respondents, 5 percent identified themselves as corporate officers (CEOs, COOs, CFOs); 4 percent as presidents; 12 percent as vice presidents, senior vice presidents, or executive vice presidents; 22 percent as directors; 46 percent as managers; and 11 percent as supervisors.
The survey respondents came from a broad swath of industries—including wholesale/retail (21 percent), third-party logistics services (13 percent), and food and grocery (8 percent). They represented companies of all sizes as well. Twenty percent were employed by companies with fewer than 100 employees, 25 percent by companies with 100 to 500 people, 9 percent by companies with 501 to 1,000 employees, 17 percent by companies with 1,001 to 5,000 people, and 29 percent by companies with more than 5,000 employees. Those companies were scattered throughout the United States, as well as Canada and Mexico. Only 1 percent of the survey respondents worked outside North America.
Our survey asked respondents to identify the functions they managed. As it turned out, only 22 percent of the respondents named just one function. The rest of the survey-takers indicated that they had multiple areas of responsibility (including 79 who said they were responsible for all of the functions listed). Warehouse and/or distribution center management was the most frequent response, cited by 74 percent of the respondents. That was followed by logistics management (63 percent), supply chain management (55 percent), transportation management (53 percent), import/export operations (28 percent), and fleet operations (22 percent).
As for the respondents themselves, 90 percent were male, 10 percent female. Some were newcomers to the workforce (14 percent were under 35 in age); others were veterans. The largest share of the respondents (71 percent) fell into the 36-to-55 age range. Thirteen percent were 56 to 65, and 2 percent said they were over 65. When asked about the highest level of education they had completed, 27 percent said high school, 54 percent had a bachelor's degree, 18 percent had a master's degree, and 1 percent had earned a Ph.D.
The majority of the respondents were seasoned professionals. When asked how many years they've worked in logistics-related jobs, only 15 percent said that they'd been in the field for five years or less. Another 16 percent have worked in logistics for six to 10 years, 18 percent for 11 to 15 years, 19 percent for 16 to 20 years, 12 percent for 21 to 25 years, and 20 percent for more than 25 years. And they're not job-hoppers: A full 62 percent said they had been working at the same company for six years or more.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."