Workforce Management
September 11, 2008
—Mark Schoeff Jr.
A bill that would expand workplace protections for disabled Americans gained unanimous Senate approval on Thursday, September 11.
The legislation, which was co-sponsored by 77 senators, sailed through on a voice vote. Both presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, came out in support of the bill weeks ago.
The measure clarifies that Congress meant for the Americans with Disabilities Act to be broadly interpreted. The original measure, which became law in the early 1990s, required employers to make accommodations for disabled employees.
The new bill, the ADA Amendments Act, addresses Supreme Court decisions that critics say restricted the law. The court ruled in several cases that mitigating measures—such as medication or prosthesis—make a person ineligible for coverage.
In an unusual show of cooperation, disability advocates and the business lobby compromised on the final bill, ensuring broad support on Capitol Hill. In late June, the House approved a similar bill, 402-17.
“This was a slam-dunk,” said Keith Smith, director of employment and labor policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “The biggest hurdle was the Senate calendar.”
Congress returned from its August recess on Monday and will be in session until late September, when it will take another break to allow members to go home and campaign.
It’s not clear whether all legislative business will be concluded by October, but the window is closing quickly.
Both the House and Senate versions of the ADA bill reiterate that the definition of a disability is a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more major life activities. They also increase the number of activities covered, add a category of bodily functions and allow workers to sue if they are “regarded as” disabled.
The House bill defines “substantially limits” as “materially restricts.” In an effort to garner more support, the Senate avoids such sharpening of the language.
“Instead, the bill takes several specific and general steps that, individually and in combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and application of the definition,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Congressional Record statement in July.
Differences between the House and Senate bills won’t slow down the measure, Smith said. He anticipates that the House will take up and pass the Senate measure, bypassing the need for a conference committee. [To see the entire article, go to: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/76/20.php ]
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Advising Students to the Ph.D.: Are We Equitable in Our Support?
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
September 15, 2008
A recent report published in Diverse: Issues In Higher Education states that Ph.D. completion varies by gender and race. Specifically, the 10-year completion rate for Whites was 55 percent, for Hispanics it was 51 percent, for Asian Americans it was 50 percent and for African Americans the rate was only 47 percent. Of course there are many factors that play a part in the lower completion rates for racial and ethnic minorities compared to their White counterparts. However, I’d like to focus on one of these factors: attention and support of one’s faculty advisor.
As a faculty member, every so often, I write down the name of all my doctoral advisees, noting the collaborations that I have with them or the introductions to opportunities that I have made for them. I do this to see if I am being equitable in my support of students. Sometimes as faculty, we tend to send all of the opportunities for scholarship, teaching, and professional service to one or two students. These students often “think like us” and are eager to do whatever we ask. But what about our other advisees? I think that as faculty we need to ask ourselves periodically if we are making connections with and for all of our students.
Are we passing on opportunities to teach and write to students of color? Are we collaborating on research projects with students of color? [To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/advising-students-to-the-phd-are-we-equitable-in-our-support/ ]
September 15, 2008
A recent report published in Diverse: Issues In Higher Education states that Ph.D. completion varies by gender and race. Specifically, the 10-year completion rate for Whites was 55 percent, for Hispanics it was 51 percent, for Asian Americans it was 50 percent and for African Americans the rate was only 47 percent. Of course there are many factors that play a part in the lower completion rates for racial and ethnic minorities compared to their White counterparts. However, I’d like to focus on one of these factors: attention and support of one’s faculty advisor.
As a faculty member, every so often, I write down the name of all my doctoral advisees, noting the collaborations that I have with them or the introductions to opportunities that I have made for them. I do this to see if I am being equitable in my support of students. Sometimes as faculty, we tend to send all of the opportunities for scholarship, teaching, and professional service to one or two students. These students often “think like us” and are eager to do whatever we ask. But what about our other advisees? I think that as faculty we need to ask ourselves periodically if we are making connections with and for all of our students.
Are we passing on opportunities to teach and write to students of color? Are we collaborating on research projects with students of color? [To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/advising-students-to-the-phd-are-we-equitable-in-our-support/ ]
Graduate Enrollments Are Up, but Uneven
Inside Higher Ed
September 16, 2008
Total graduate enrollments in the United States hit 1,698,445 — up 3 percent — according to a study being released today by the Council of Graduate Schools. The 3 percent increase is a fairly steady figure; it is the average annual increase over the last 10 years, although if past economic downturns are any indication, enrollments may grow more over the next year, with new college graduates facing tighter job markets. But even as total graduate enrollments are going up around the expected rate, the increases vary by demographic group and field of study.
Health sciences and engineering enrollments saw the largest increases (9 percent and 5 percent, respectively), while humanities enrollments were flat and business and education enrollments were each down by 1 percent. Enrollments of non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents outpaced U.S. enrollments (up 7 percent vs. up 3 percent).
Enrollments of men grew at slightly higher rates than those for women (4 percent vs. 3 percent), but women continue to dominate graduate enrollments, making up 59 percent of all graduate students and 66 percent at master’s level institutions.
Among U.S. citizens, gains were larger for non-white students than for white students, continuing a diversification of graduate enrollments that has been going on for some time. Gains were the largest for black and Native American students — and some of those gains were in fields in which enrollment for those groups has historically been low. At the same time, the percentage increases are applied to an overall graduate student body that remains largely white. [To see the entire story, please go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/16/grad ]
September 16, 2008
Total graduate enrollments in the United States hit 1,698,445 — up 3 percent — according to a study being released today by the Council of Graduate Schools. The 3 percent increase is a fairly steady figure; it is the average annual increase over the last 10 years, although if past economic downturns are any indication, enrollments may grow more over the next year, with new college graduates facing tighter job markets. But even as total graduate enrollments are going up around the expected rate, the increases vary by demographic group and field of study.
Health sciences and engineering enrollments saw the largest increases (9 percent and 5 percent, respectively), while humanities enrollments were flat and business and education enrollments were each down by 1 percent. Enrollments of non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents outpaced U.S. enrollments (up 7 percent vs. up 3 percent).
Enrollments of men grew at slightly higher rates than those for women (4 percent vs. 3 percent), but women continue to dominate graduate enrollments, making up 59 percent of all graduate students and 66 percent at master’s level institutions.
Among U.S. citizens, gains were larger for non-white students than for white students, continuing a diversification of graduate enrollments that has been going on for some time. Gains were the largest for black and Native American students — and some of those gains were in fields in which enrollment for those groups has historically been low. At the same time, the percentage increases are applied to an overall graduate student body that remains largely white. [To see the entire story, please go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/16/grad ]
Monday, September 15, 2008
CHAIR EARP NAMES SYSTEMIC INVESTIGATION PROGRAM MANAGER
EEOC Affirms Commitment to Combat Systemic Discrimination in the Workplace
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008
WASHINGTON – Naomi C. Earp, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today announced the selection of Dana Hutter as the new Systemic Investigation Program Manager. Hutter, a veteran agency official, will assume the new position on September 15 after serving nearly five years as the Washington Field Office Director.
In his new role, Hutter will be responsible for promoting development of systemic investigations through collaboration among field offices, as well as among field investigative and legal units.
“Eliminating systemic barriers to equal employment opportunity continues to be a top priority,” said Chair Earp. “Systemic cases are an effective way of leveraging the EEOC’s resources to have the widest possible reach. This new position will facilitate the goals of the systemic program through a coordinated, strategic, and effective approach to maximize results.”
The Commission adopted the systemic program in April 2006 following a comprehensive study by an internal task force. Since then, the identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases has been an integral part of the EEOC’s work. A systemic case is a pattern or practice, policy, and/or class case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area.
Under the systemic program, the EEOC will oversee the following operational enhancements:
National Law Firm Model – The EEOC is working on staffing systemic lawsuits based on the needs of the case, rather than based on the office where the case arose. This will result in the district offices improving how they work with each other, allowing the EEOC to make better use of existing expertise and cultivate staff to develop additional expertise nationwide.
Technology – The EEOC is expanding its use of technology and information systems to serve as tools that can help investigators and attorneys identify systemic discrimination. For example, the EEOC is integrating EEO-1 reports with charge data to more readily identify potential systemic issues.
Early Identification – Investigators and attorneys are working together to identify systemic cases early in the process.
Education – Field attorneys and investigators will continue to receive specialized training on investigating and litigating systemic cases.
Partnering – District offices are expanding their efforts to partner with one another, as well as with the plaintiff’s bar, advocacy groups, and other state and federal agencies. They are also reaching out to employer groups to encourage employers to identify and address any discriminatory practices proactively.
Commenting on his new position, Hutter said: “Chair Earp is affirming her continued commitment to combating systemic discrimination, and wants to make systemic work part of the fabric of the agency. I look forward to taking on the important responsibilities of this new position, and especially advocating that field staff receive the support they need to ensure the success of the systemic program.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008
WASHINGTON – Naomi C. Earp, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today announced the selection of Dana Hutter as the new Systemic Investigation Program Manager. Hutter, a veteran agency official, will assume the new position on September 15 after serving nearly five years as the Washington Field Office Director.
In his new role, Hutter will be responsible for promoting development of systemic investigations through collaboration among field offices, as well as among field investigative and legal units.
“Eliminating systemic barriers to equal employment opportunity continues to be a top priority,” said Chair Earp. “Systemic cases are an effective way of leveraging the EEOC’s resources to have the widest possible reach. This new position will facilitate the goals of the systemic program through a coordinated, strategic, and effective approach to maximize results.”
The Commission adopted the systemic program in April 2006 following a comprehensive study by an internal task force. Since then, the identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases has been an integral part of the EEOC’s work. A systemic case is a pattern or practice, policy, and/or class case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area.
Under the systemic program, the EEOC will oversee the following operational enhancements:
National Law Firm Model – The EEOC is working on staffing systemic lawsuits based on the needs of the case, rather than based on the office where the case arose. This will result in the district offices improving how they work with each other, allowing the EEOC to make better use of existing expertise and cultivate staff to develop additional expertise nationwide.
Technology – The EEOC is expanding its use of technology and information systems to serve as tools that can help investigators and attorneys identify systemic discrimination. For example, the EEOC is integrating EEO-1 reports with charge data to more readily identify potential systemic issues.
Early Identification – Investigators and attorneys are working together to identify systemic cases early in the process.
Education – Field attorneys and investigators will continue to receive specialized training on investigating and litigating systemic cases.
Partnering – District offices are expanding their efforts to partner with one another, as well as with the plaintiff’s bar, advocacy groups, and other state and federal agencies. They are also reaching out to employer groups to encourage employers to identify and address any discriminatory practices proactively.
Commenting on his new position, Hutter said: “Chair Earp is affirming her continued commitment to combating systemic discrimination, and wants to make systemic work part of the fabric of the agency. I look forward to taking on the important responsibilities of this new position, and especially advocating that field staff receive the support they need to ensure the success of the systemic program.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
America's Heroes at Work
The U.S. Department of Labor has launched a new website, "America's Heroes at Work," to support the Employment Success of Returning Service Members with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Designed for employers and the workforce development system, this Web site is a link to information and tools to help returning service members affected by TBI and/or PTSD succeed in the workplace - particularly service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
America's Heroes at Work is managed jointly by DOL's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) and Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) in collaboration with other federal agencies engaged in TBI and PTSD programs, including the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services and Education, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and others.
Visit the website at: http://www.americasheroesatwork.gov/.
America's Heroes at Work is managed jointly by DOL's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) and Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) in collaboration with other federal agencies engaged in TBI and PTSD programs, including the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services and Education, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and others.
Visit the website at: http://www.americasheroesatwork.gov/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)