Days to comment on EEOC’s proposed regulations
Employers have only days to comment on the proposed regulations governing the definition of an online job applicant. Keeping your head under the sand and allowing the two different proposed regulations to pass could result in your having to report different sets of numbers to two different government entities.
For Immediate Release
Days to comment on EEOC’s proposed
regulations
Marysville, WA (PRWEB) April 28, 2004 -- After four years of
deliberation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published on
March 4, 2004 its proposed new regulations for the definition of an online job
applicant. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published
its definition later that month on the 28th. Employers have until May 3, 2004 to
comment on the EEOC’s version and until May 28, 2004 to respond to the OFCCP.
“You will be affected if you use the internet for recruiting,” says
Frank Heasley, PhD, president and CEO of MedZilla.com, a leading Internet
recruitment and professional community that serves biotechnology,
pharmaceuticals, healthcare and science. “We encourage you and your fellow
employees, regardless of the size of your company, to study how the proposed
guidelines will affect you when they are accepted into law. It’s plausible, that
employers will have to comply with two different guidelines unless you and
others get on the bandwagon and comment.”
Gerry Crispin, coauthor of the
CareerXRoads reference guide for job and resume sites and partner in an
international consulting practice on staffing strategy, says that since 1978,
when the uniform guidelines were published, employers have had to identify (when
possible) the gender, race and ethnicity of applicants for employment. The
advent of the internet in the 1990s muddied the waters. Whereas employers used
to collect the data when people came in, physically, and filled out
applications, some employers were now gathering the data online. The problem:
There has been no consistency on when and how the data is collected, how much,
if any is collected, and how the data is used, according to Crispin.
The
government directed the EEOC and its sister organizations to look at this issue
in 2000, and four years later, the Federal register of the US government
published the proposed new regulations for the definition of an applicant at http://www.regulations.gov/fredpdfs/04-04090.pdf. Other
government organizations associated with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Program (UGESP) were invited to issue their versions of the guidelines
and one did: the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, at http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2004006972.htm.
The
two are different. In EEOC’s guidelines, three conditions must be met for a
person to be considered an applicant when using the internet or other electronic
means to express interest in employment, according to Crispin. The employer must
have taken steps to fill a particular job; the individual must have followed the
employer’s standard application procedure; and the individual must have
expressed interest in the particular position.
That is pretty much,
where the EEOC ends its description of a candidate, Crispin says. The OFCCP adds
what Crispin says is a crucial qualifier: “advertised, basic qualifications,”
meaning that in the advertised position are qualifications that the individual
demonstrates that he or she in fact meets. This, he says, will better qualify
who should be considered an applicant—otherwise, almost everyone who wonders
onto a corporate Web site and fills out an application for a specific position
(even if that person doesn’t meet basic qualifications) would be considered an
applicant and employers would have to collect data on the person and report that
data.
OFCCP says the qualifications in the advertisement must be
measurable. “Must be friendly” is not measurable. “Must be able to work in the
U.S.” and “Must have a valid driver’s license with fewer than three points” are
examples of measurable qualifications. It must also be non-comparable. You
cannot say, “Must be the best candidate in terms of listening ability.” In
addition, the qualifications must be bona fide requirements of the
job.
Unless employers comment before the deadline, asking that EEOC adopt
OFCCP’s recommendation, it is possible that employers would have to report to
two different entities, using two different sets of numbers, according to
Crispin. “The solution is you, individually, or the people in the company must
take a look at this and comment before the dates.”
The final guidelines
would impact how employers report information about diversity to the government.
If yours is a large employer, which has a sophisticated, expensive applicant
tracking system in place and is already collecting the data on the front end,
you might only have to tweak the system to meet the government’s reporting
requirements. It’s the companies of all sizes that do not have the sophisticated
data collection systems, or the person-power to collect and report it that will
suffer the most, according to Dr. Heasley.
After studying the proposed
regulations, you should ask yourself whether they add clarity to the discussion
about the definition of an applicant. You should ponder whether the proposed
regulations would add to the company’s ability to analyze its practices and head
off potentially discriminating practices or demonstrate to the government that
your employment strategies successfully attract a diverse applicant population.
You should anticipate any added burden (i.e. cost or added paperwork) from the
regulations and, then, decide whether to comment, according to
Crispin.
Send your comments by May 3 to the EEOC, Frances M. Hart,
Executive Office, Executive Secretariat, EEOC 10th Floor, 1801 L Street, NW,
Washington, DC, 20507. Fax: 202-663-4114. OFCCP comments, due May 28, should go
to Mr. Joseph Dubray, Jr., Director, Division of Policy, Planning and Program
Development, OFCCP, e-mail protected from spam bots, fax: 202-693-1304. (OFCCP
comments must indicate that they are in response to 41 CFR Part
60-1.)
About MedZilla.com
Established in mid 1994, MedZilla is the
original web site to serve career and hiring needs for professionals and
employers in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medicine, science and healthcare.
MedZilla databases contain about 10,000 open positions, 13,000 resumes from
candidates actively seeking new positions and 71,000 archived
resumes.
Medzilla® is a Registered Trademark owned by Medzilla Inc.
Copyright ©2004, MedZilla, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce and
distribute this text in its entirety, and if electronically, with a link to the
URL www.medzilla.com. For
permission to quote from or reproduce any portion of this message, please
contact Michele Groutage, Director of Marketing and Development, MedZilla, Inc.
Email: e-mail protected from spam bots.
# # #
Source : http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/4/prweb121765.htm