Author: Max Mihelich

Posted on

Martine Rothblatt Interview: Welcome to Cyberia

Martine Rothblatt photo by Danuta Otfinowski

Much of the talk these days regarding HR technology revolves around big data, wearable devices and bring-your-own-device policies. Such current technological concerns could be mere child’s play compared to cyberconsciousness and how it could alter the workforce of the future. This obscure concept is brought to you courtesy of Martine Rothblatt, an unrelenting force in business.

As if practicing law and working for NASA weren’t enough, Rothblatt also launched several satellite communications companies, the most famous of which was Sirius Satellite Radio in 1990. For most people, that would constitute a full career. But Rothblatt didn’t stop there. In the early 1990s, after her daughter was diagnosed with pulmonary arterial hypertension, an illness for which there currently is no cure, Rothblatt left Sirius and started biotech company United Therapeutics Corp. in hopes of eventually finding one. 

‘Cyberconsciousness is being aware of yourself as a feeling,
caring, living being — with that awareness being based in software rather than a human brain.’ 

—Martine Rothblatt

Oh, and Rothblatt, who recently published her latest book, “Virtually Human: The Promise — and the Peril — of Digital Immortality,” happens to be the highest-paid female CEO in the United States and a transgender woman.

Rothblatt and her employees at the Silver Spring, Maryland–based United Therapeutics are dedicated to developing medical products that address the unmet needs of patients with chronic and life-threatening conditions. In June 2001, Rothblatt received a doctorate in medical ethics from Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, a constituent college of the University of London.

In addition to publicly traded United Therapeutics, which reported $1.1 billion in revenue in 2013, Rothblatt also launched the nonprofit Terasem Movement Foundation, whose employees, under Rothblatt’s stewardship, are pioneering research in cyberconsciousness.

“Cyberconsciousness is being aware of yourself as a feeling, caring, living being — with that awareness being based in software rather than a human brain,” said Rothblatt, 60.

Although cyberconsciousness is a relatively low-profile area of computer science, if Rothblatt’s predictions for cyberconsciousness ultimately come to pass, the workforce will look vastly different 15 years from now.

“I think it’s going to be transformative in terms of how it affects the workplace. I think it will be a huge productivity multiplier. I think it will actually create a great deal of new employment for noncyberconscious people,” Rothblatt said. “And many jobs that do not require the use of hands or legs could be done by cyberconscious people.”

Customer service, bookkeeping, legal research and writing jobs could all be done by cyberconscious people in the future, according to Rothblatt. Even a vast amount of national security and other government jobs could be carried out by virtual people. If such developments occur as predicted, there will be a new aspect of diversity that organizations will have to consider for their business strategies. Likewise, managers will have to learn how to manage a workforce composed of both organic and virtual employees.

“I think managers are going to have to develop skills to manage cyberconscious people, just like we’ve had to go to workshops to manage a diverse workplace,” Rothblatt said. “It’s another skill set that needs to be developed, but there’ll be no shortage of workshops on managing your cyberconscious employees.”

Cyberconsciousness Explained

Rothblatt was introduced to the idea of cyberconsciousness after a friend gave her prominent futurist Ray Kurzweil’s book “The Age of the Spiritual Machines.” Rothblatt credits Kurzweil with sparking her interest in cyberconsciousness. Kurzweil, who declined to be interviewed, sits on the board of directors at United Therapeutics.

In her latest book “Virtually Human,” which was published in September 2014, Rothblatt argues that by 2030, cyberconsciousness will be a reality and people will be able to download their brains to create virtual “mindclones.” Theoretically, immortality may soon be a possibility. In the future, it also could be possible to create entirely new virtual people and resurrect others.

In order for people to create cyberconscious versions of themselves or others, they will need a robust file of mannerisms, personality, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values, Rothblatt explained.

It’s “sort of like 20 years’ worth of Facebook postings, stored Internet chats, Instagram photos and personal YouTube videos,” she said. That mindfile would then be uploaded to a mindware program that examines every saved digital memory to determine an operating system of parameters to reflect the personality shown over the timespan covered by the data. A cyberconcious person would be a digital mindclone that thinks of itself as a human and is its own entity.

Currently, the primary limitation to creating fully cyberconscious people is the mindware that will eventually make cyberconsciousness possible is not yet powerful enough to do so.

However, the Terasem Movement has developed a “proof of concept” robot called BINA48, which is named after Rothblatt’s wife, Bina, and was featured on Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” last year. BINA48’s mindfile is based on Rothblatt’s digital reflections.

BINA48 “is just a proof of concept of how the technology is getting closer and closer to being cyberconscious. She’s like a souped-up version of the Siri app,” Rothblatt said. “She’s, in fact, not conscious. But she’s a very good learning tool for the whole topic of cyberconsciouness.”

The Terasem Foundation further tests the creation of cyberconscious people through a project called LifeNaut, where teams of high school students compete to resurrect historical figures.

The development of cyberconscious technology carries interesting implications for the future of business. Theoretically, it may not be long before a company’s contingency plan consists of creating a mindclone of its CEO in the event of his or her untimely death to oversee the company until a successor is named.  Or, even go on running the company forever.

“All of these things are falling into place very rapidly because there is a large market demand for software that is evermore user-friendly,” Rothblatt said. “Whoever has more user-friendly software has a bigger market share, and to make software more user-friendly you have to make it more human.”

Heaven Is a Computer

Inevitably, many people are skeptical of Rothblatt’s work in cyberconsciousness. Some people simply question the possibility of cyberconsciousness; some question its morality, asking whether this is a field of scientific study that humans should be working on. Other critics claim sacrilege.

Rothblatt doesn’t see it that way.

“All religions teach the immortality of the soul, and all religions teach our life is not limited by our body. Cyberconsciousness seems to be very consistent with traditional religion,” she said. 

‘In the future, I think robots will be more like partners in the workforce. Human displacement will occur, but I don’t think we will be taken over by machines.’

—Michael Coovert, psychology professor, University of South Florida

 

Skepticism of cyberconsciousness is also driven in part by the societal fear that advancements in robotics will one day erase the need for human labor. Think HAL 9000 in Stanley Kubrick’s film “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Human displacement is an inevitable consequence of technological developments, said Michael Coovert, a psychology professor at the University of South Florida and author of several books on the effects of technology on workers and the workplace. If cyberconscious people eventually appear in the workforce, they will most likely take over jobs previously held by organic people similar to the way ATMs have replaced large numbers of bank tellers.

“We already use machines to make our lives easier. Spell check or calendar organizers are great examples of this,” Coovert said. “In the future, I think robots will be more like partners in the workforce. Human displacement will occur, but I don’t think we will be taken over by machines.”

Given that programs like spell check and Outlook have made mundane tasks easier to manage, if trends continue, the everyday tasks of human resources professionals should be aided by advancements in HR technology.

“Human resources will benefit from developments in applicant tracking systems and recruiting software,” said Garry Mathiason, a senior shareholder and co-chair of the robotics, artificial intelligence and automation practice group at law firm Littler Mendelson.

Mathiason believes the use of robots in HR departments is closer than many think. He pointed to a “cute, 2-foot-tall” robot named Sophie that interviews human candidates as an example. Sophie, the product of a partnership between La Trobe University Business School in Melbourne, Australia, and NEC Corp. in Japan, is intended to be an objective interviewer, which can help employers minimize risks created by interviewers who may ask discriminatory questions to candidates, he said.

“Sophie is programmed to not only ask and respond to questions, but to also measure an interviewee’s physiological responses and compare results with the top 10 percent of the existing workforce,” Mathiason wrote in a 2014 report titled “Five Transformational Impacts of Robotics on Human Resources, the Workplace and the Law.”

Human labor displacement aside, technological developments also create new jobs and expand the need for existing industries. Rothblatt expects cyberconscious people to demand equal rights under the law, such as the right not to be killed or to be protected from discrimination. This would create a new legal practice for lawyers. Similarly, some cyberconscious people will likely need psychologists to look after their mental health, opening up a new area of practice for mental health professionals. Rothblatt also believes cyberconscious employees will expect benefits packages.

“There’ll be huge job openings in cyberpsychology to adjust cyberconscious parameters if virtual people are feeling like they’re remembering too much. They’ll have fears — all the things that cause us to go to the psychologist are going to cause virtual people to want to go as well,” Rothblatt said. “And businesses would likely have to offer benefits for cyberconscious people. Business should not discriminate against cyberconscious people in the future. We’ve paved the way that nowadays you cannot discriminate against mental health.”

Transgender Activism

The advent of fully cyberconscious people is still years away. So while the Terasem Movement works toward a cyberconscious future, Rothblatt also devotes herself to causes that affect today’s workforce. Since undergoing sex reassignment surgery in 1994, she has become a vocal advocate for transgender rights. In 2010 she and her wife, Bina, received the Vicki Sexual Freedom Award, given by the Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for sexual freedom as a fundamental human right.

In her interview with Workforce Rothblatt downplayed the significance of her transgenderism in the business world, saying, “It’s really nothing that special. I’ve been accepted as a transgender woman without people really caring. There are almost 1,000 employees here, they all know their CEO is a transgender woman and feel it’s irrelevant.”

While she was accepted as a transgender woman by her colleagues, not all transgender employees are fortunate enough to be in the same social or professional positions as Rothblatt, who earns $38 million annually as CEO of United Therapeutics (She is followed by Oracle Corp. president and CFO Safra Catz at $37.7 million).

In many states a transgender employee can be legally fired simply for being transgender, making it difficult for such employees to feel comfortable being open about their gender identity in the workplace.

However, with the help of activists like Rothblatt, that’s slowly changing.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have laws explicitly protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer workers from being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Three other states protect only sexual orientation. Further, 91 percent of Fortune500 companies already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 61 percent prohibit discrimination based on gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Additionally, with a July 2014 executive order, President Barack Obama amended two existing executive orders to extend similar employment protections to all federal workers as well as federal contractors and subcontractors who do more than $10,000 in government business in one year. The president’s amendment to Order 11478 added gender identity protections to all federal employees. The amendment to Order 11246 added sexual orientation and gender-identity protections to federal contractors and subcontractors.

The amended executive orders allowed the president to provide employment protections to some LGBTQ workers after the Employment Non-Discrimination Act failed to pass the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year. The law would have prohibited discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Although there is not a nationwide ban on employment discrimination for sexual orientation or gender identity, the amendments will still cover a large portion of the country’s workforce. There are approximately 26 million government contract workers, which accounts for 22 percent of the total civilian workforce. Additionally, case law developing around sex discrimination under Title VII continues to offer more protections for LGBTQ employees.

“I hope my career of success with satellite communications and biotechnology can be helpful in opening up the workplace to transgendered people,” Rothblatt said. “Because transgendered people have the benefit of seeing things from both a male and female perspective, I think we can often be uniquely valuable employees. And I hope people can look to my example for why they should welcome transgender employees and not feel that they have to terminate an employee that comes out as transgendered.”

Posted on

Made to Trade

Photo illustration by Katie Slovick.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, turned 20 in January 2014. The landmark trade deal between the United States, Canada and Mexico led to stronger economic ties for the three countries — not to mention a North American economy that looks drastically different now than it did two decades ago.

“Trade and investments have increased exponentially. That’s one of the biggest differences from 20 years ago,” said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, an academic society and think tank located in Washington, D.C. “Trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico is four times greater than it was pre-NAFTA, and foreign investment in North America is five time greater than it was two decades ago. That’s pretty amazing.”

When NAFTA went into effect Jan. 1, 1994, the agreement created a juggernaut $6 trillion economy with 360 million people. Twenty years later, the deal links 450 million people producing $17 trillion worth of goods and services, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

While NAFTA has been successful doing what it was intended to do — increase trade and investments — it has also become the target of heavy criticism by both economists and the North American population at large.

Not only has NAFTA led to an increase in trade and investment, but also the deal has played a role in changing the landscape of labor in North America. For example, Biette said NAFTA came about during a shift from manufacturing to services in the United States, and played a role in advancing that change. Likewise, Mexico’s agricultural and manufacturing industries look completely different today than during the mid-’90s.

That shift sparked an ongoing debate about the consequences of the agreement, and foreshadowed recent arguments about the merits of two proposed trade deals between the U.S., the European Union and numerous Asia-Pacific countries. If agreed to, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, would further liberalize trade policies between the U.S. and the EU, while the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, would do the same for the U.S. and Asia-Pacific countries. Both deals could prove to be as contentious and controversial as NAFTA.

 And while NAFTA has been successful doing what it was intended to do — increase trade and investments — it has also become the target of heavy criticism by both economists and the North American population at large. In fact, 46 percent of Canadians and 40 percent of Americans said they would like their respective countries to do whatever is necessary to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA, and a smaller proportion (8 percent in Canada and 13 percent in the U.S.) would like for their respective countries to leave the trade deal, according to a 2012 poll published by Canadian research firm Angus Reid Global.

“The benefits of NAFTA were distributed unevenly, that I will admit,” Biette said. “There were winners and losers, some sectors did better than others, some parts of the U.S. did better than others.”

Support and Opposition

Ever since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, Mexico has become something of a double-edged sword in the debate on the trade agreement. Both sides have used the consequences of the deal to argue its merits and downsides.

 In the early 1990s, the Mexican economy seemed to be putting a disastrous previous decade behind it. Economists refer to the 1980s as Mexico’s “lost decade” because a debt crisis in 1982 and a 1986 collapse in oil prices wreaked havoc on the country’s economy. But by the end of the decade, Mexico’s economy had turned the corner.

“Inflation was being reduced substantially, foreign investors were pumping money into the country, and the central bank had accumulated billions of dollars in reserves. Capping the favorable developments was the proposal to reduce trade barriers with Mexico’s largest trade partner, the United States, through NAFTA,” according to a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

However, in December 1994, the Mexican government devalued the peso, and the ensuing financial crisis cut the peso’s value in half, which sent inflation soaring and ultimately triggered a severe recession.

“I don’t know whether you can attribute that event to NAFTA, because Mexico did a lot of things wrong then,” Biette said. “But one of the benefits of NAFTA was that the United States and Canada were there to help Mexico out. That would not have been the case before. Mexico considers itself a middle- to upper-class country now.”

Mexico was able to benefit from the removal of trade tariffs with the U.S. and Canada, which helped some Mexican businesses remain productive and sell their goods. Additionally, supporters of the deal argue NAFTA expedited the Mexican economy’s transformation to a modern economy, which was already underway by the time the trade agreement went into effect.

A Brief History of U.S. Trade Deals

1934: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934:This act granted President Franklin D. Roosevelt the power to levy tariffs, adjust tariff rates and negotiate bilateral trade agreements without receiving prior congressional approval.Supporters believed giving the president these powers would help the White House quickly conclude agricultural trade agreements to aid recovery of the Depression-era economy. Critics said Congress had abdicated a key oversight power.

1947: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade:Signed in 1947, GATT is an agreement that regulated trade between 153 countries in the post-World War II global economy. The agreement was aimed at “reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis.” The deal created the World Trade Organization, which came into being Jan. 1, 1995.

1974: Trade Promotion Authority: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 set the framework for today’s Trade Promotion Authority, or “fast-track.” Unlike the 1934 deal, TPA does not give power to the executive branch. “Since 1974, Congress has enacted TPA legislation that defines U.S. negotiating objectives and priorities for trade agreements and establishes consultation and notification requirements for the president to follow throughout the negotiation process,” according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

1994: North American Free Trade Agreement: After going into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, the deal strengthened the already strong trade partnerships between Mexico, Canada and the United States. The agreement created a $6 trillion economy with 360 million people. Twenty years later, the deal links 450 million people producing $17 trillion worth of goods and services, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. NAFTA continues to be the target of criticism regarding its effect on American jobs, North American wage rates and the Mexican economy at-large.

Proposed Deals:

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Negotiations for the deal have been ongoing since 2005. According to the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the proposed agreement is the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s economic policy in the Asia-Pacific region. If the deal were ratified today, the U.S. would enter into a trade agreement with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: An inconclusive eighth round of negotiations took place in October 2014 for the TTIP. The U.S. Trade Representative Office claims the deal “will be a cutting-edge agreement aimed at providing greater compatibility and transparency in trade and investment regulation, while maintaining high levels of health, safety and environmental protection.” Similar to NAFTA, TTIP has attracted resistance and criticism in Europe for its expected effects on labor, agriculture and even the democratic process.

—Max Mihelich

Still it’s hard to ignore the influence subsidized U.S. corn had on the Mexican agriculture industry after protective tariffs were removed. According to one study, 2 million Mexican farmers have been displaced as a result of NAFTA. Many ex-farmers ended up taking jobs in the energy or manufacturing industries, Biette said.

Another common criticism of NAFTA is that it displaces jobs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that about 566,000 jobs have been displaced in the U.S. since 1994 as a result of NAFTA, about 60 percent of which were in the manufacturing industry. Further, opponents of the agreement claim the deal favors big corporations, places downward pressure on wages and puts workers at a disadvantage in labor negotiations. The theory goes that workers are more likely to concede certain demands during negotiations, or vote not to organize a union, if their employer threatens to move to Mexico, experts explained.

“The people that the deal hurt most were low-skilledlaborers and those in manufacturing,” Biette said, lending credibility to the position that NAFTA favors bigger corporations.

Biette pointed to macroeconomic conditions to explain why low-skilled workers and wages in the U.S. have largely been negatively affected over the past 20 years. He cited the rise of China as a major economic power and its ability to manufacture goods at a cheaper price than its North American counterparts, which led to many manufacturing jobs being sent to China. Similarly, technological advances and the shift within the U.S. to a services-based economy have played a significant role in the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Twenty years ago, China wasn’t nearly the international player that it is today. China “was not the manufacturing competitor that it is now, and many jobs that left in the United States for Mexico went to China,” Biette said. “But what’s actually happening now is that those jobs are coming back because of transportation costs, efficiency improvements in the U.S. and wage-rate increases in China.”

NAFTA’s Legacy and Future Deals

NAFTA built on existing international trade deals between the three North American countries that went back nearly 30 years prior. However, experts explained that the deal was a first of its kind and laid the foundation for many trade deals that have followed. Its effect can still be felt in the ongoing negotiations of two proposed trade deals: the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Similar to NAFTA, the U.S. goals in negotiating the TPP include the elimination of tariffs and the reduction of longstanding nontariff barriers. Furthermore, negotiators hope the proposed deal will include protections for investors, new rules to support the burgeoning digital economy and address emerging global challenges that affect trade, such as unfair competitive advantages of state-owned enterprises, inadequate labor-rights protections and poor environmental conservation policies.

If the deal is ratified, the U.S. would enter into a trade agreement with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

“The TPP constitutes the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s economy policy in the Asia-Pacific region,” according to “Why Trade Matters,” a 2014 report published by the Brookings Institution.

A stronger trade partnership between the U.S. and EU is the ultimate goal of TTIP.While the two entities already enjoy the broadest economic partnership in the world with $6.5 trillion in shared commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicts TTIP will lead to increases of $200 billion to the U.S. and EU’s respective gross domestic products through the reduction of “nonsafety-related regulatory divergences.”

The TTIP negotiations entered an eighth round back in October and ended without a full agreement. Experts at the Brookings Institution indicated that the goals of TTIP are similar to those of TPP. For example, both sides have already agreed to eliminate all tariffs on industrial and agricultural goods and liberalize policies concerning services, investments and government procurement of goods.

“Taken together, the countries participating in TPP and TTIP account for two-thirds of global GDP and half of global trade, and have a combined market of 1.3 billion consumers. Nearly 70 percent of U.S. exports already go to TPP or TTIP partners, and 84 percent of foreign direct investment comes from them,” according to the Brookings Institution. “By 2018, TPP and TTIP markets are estimated to grow by $6.7 trillion. At the conclusion of both negotiations, the United States would enjoy liberalized trade with almost two-thirds of the global economy.”

A successful outcome to both would reduce the cost of doing business with the U.S. for countries in Europe and Asia, experts explained. The best-case scenario would be the reduction of “duplicative costs” that arise from similar regulations and standards that two trading partners have.

Likewise, allowing goods and information to be exchanged easily across borders in all regions would benefit third parties that operate in both markets.

“Studies have indicated that TPP could grow the global economy by as much as $224 billion annually, equating to a 0.2 percent increase in global GDP, and TTIP could add an additional $133 billion to global GDP annually,” wrote Miriam Sapiro, former deputy U.S. trade representative and current visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

However, both proposed trade agreements have their critics.

As with NAFTA, there is strong resistance to the TTIP from some Europeans. An Internet search will turn up numerous protest group sites that oppose its ratification. Many claim the deal will threaten the democratic process by allowing international companies to sidestep individual country’s laws regarding food safety, transportation or labor rights.

“I do not see a threat to democratic processes,” Sapiro wrote. “Negotiating positions are developed on the basis of extensive public comment as well as consultations with a broad array of stakeholders, including, for the United States, extensive work with members of Congress. In addition, both the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament will have to sign off on any deal reached.”

Given the slow reshoring process in the U.S. manufacturing industry, it appears that some criticisms of NAFTA fall flat. More appropriately, the 20-year-old trade deal seems to share one important characteristic with many other international trade agreements: It has become the target of anti-globalization rhetoric.

“NAFTA is the boogeyman, or the symbol of people’s fears, about trade,” Biette said. “People tend to think of the bad things that we get out of trade, and not the good things we get out of trade.”

Posted on

Meet the Game Changers 2014

Human resources is considered a cautious sector by practitioners and outsiders alike. But there are those people in the industry dedicated to pushing it forward with innovative people-management practices. Here at Workforce, we call those innovators Game Changers.

Workforce’s editorial staff selected the 30 winners of the fourth-annual awards program based on professional accomplishments and other achievements. They are a diverse group representing some of the best HR practitioners and strategists under 40 years old.

This year’s class hails from arguably the most diverse and unique set of trades and backgrounds in the four years of Game Changers. Each year the Workforce editorial team has identified a trend that characterizes the group of award winners. Last year’s group seemed to be full of practitioners focused on employee development.

This year, however, there is no clear trend to identify, no definitive stamp. Instead, like the practice itself, our winners cut a broad swath across HR. This international group of HR talent is making its mark in benefits, rewards and recognition, employee communications and a variety of HR practices. They come from a variety of industries such as technology, auto manufacturing, social services, academia and the federal government.

That these individuals are able to effect change in a field often criticized as being adverse to risk-taking truly makes them Game Changers.

Congratulations to each winner.

MEET THE GAME CHANGERS 2014

Doreen Allison Eric Barger Luca Bonmassar Elijah Bradshaw Andi Campbell
Nathan Christensen Andrea Dropkin Taro Fukuyama Tanvi Gautam Keith Henderson
Michael Housman April Kassen Keagan Kerr Sarah Lecuna Kristin Lewis
Todd Maycunich Lisa Mitchell-Kastner Nate Randall Claudia Riccomagno Talia Shaull
Max Simkoff Jamie Trabbic Tushar Trivedi Brent Wagner Danielle Weinblatt

 

GAME CHANGERS 2014: THEY ALSO HAVE GAME:
Yiorgos Boudouris, Craig Bryant, Sebastian Rodriguez, Cara Silletto and Beth Silvers
Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Danielle Weinblatt

Danielle Weinblatt Game Changer 2014
Danielle Weinblatt

While pursuing her MBA from Harvard Business School, Danielle Weinblatt was looking for a way to solve the various problems she thinks plague the interview process. In 2011 she used her previous experience as a hiring manager to help her launch Take the Interview to eliminate her perceived lack of communication between managers and recruiters, coordination issues and transparency with candidates throughout the interview process.

Weinblatt, 31, created the company’s interview management platform, which uses video interviews and data analytics to help clients make well-informed hiring decisions. More recently, Take the Interview launched a new interviewing platform powered by Google Glass with hope that wearable technology will soon transform the recruiting industry.

Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Keith Henderson

When he’s not appearing on reality TV show “Big Brother,” mentoring disadvantaged youths from Joliet, Illinois, or coaching high school basketball, Keith Henderson is directing the everyday human resources functions at Job Corps of Illinois.

Henderson, 35, is responsible for maintaining effective programs in recruiting and retention, benefits and compensation, and overall organizational development for Job Corps, a program run by the U.S. Labor Department that offers free education and vocational training to young people aged 16 to 24.

Henderson takes his job as HR director seriously, as he often has to make “decisions that can change people’s lives.” And as the leader of the Footsteps Mentorship Program, he plays an active role in the lives of many disadvantaged youths around Joliet, which is about 40 miles south of Chicago. Henderson said his “biggest win yet” for the program came after one of the participants landed a college basketball scholarship.

Posted on

OSHA’s Foulke Tale: Ed Foulke Reflects on His Tenure

Ed Foulke is the former head of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

A construction worker in Tennessee stood halfway up a 3-foot ladder at his work site. He lost his balance, fell backward and landed headfirst. Although he only fell about 36 inches — a seemingly safe height — his injuries proved fatal.

The unfortunate incident occurred in 1980 when a young Ed Foulke was working as a labor and employment attorney at a Greenville, South Carolina, law firm that represented the Tennessee-based construction company. Foulke was visiting the work site when the fatality occurred, and, as the only lawyer on site, he was walked through the post-workplace fatality procedures over the phone by a colleague back in Greenville.

It was the first time the future head of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration dealt with a workplace fatality — or even with OSHA, for that matter. From that experience, Foulke, who received his law degree from Loyola University New Orleans, learned “that people die very easily,” and it was one factor that pushed him into a career dedicated to improving safety in the workplace. 

“It was a multilevel thing,” Foulke said about his decision to get involved with workplace health and safety. “I was helping people stay healthy and alive at the work site. I was helping the work site be safer, and helping my clients improve their safety programs.”

Through his work, Foulke, 61, who served as OSHA’s head from April 2006 to November 2008 under President George W. Bush, found purpose helping businesses remain compliant with the myriad safety regulations governing workplaces in the U.S., especially small- to medium-size employers.

While even large corporations must devote a substantial amount of time and resources to workplace safety compliance, Foulke and other safety experts contend that smaller employers often lack the ability to ensure such compliance is met. Whereas a large manufacturer may have its own safety department, a smaller company may only have one human resources administrator overwhelmed by a slew of other tasks and too busy to oversee employee safety.

“A lot of the small- and medium-sized employers can’t even afford to have anybody but one HR person doing HR, safety, immigration and benefits — all those different things. They can’t afford a separate safety person,” said Foulke, who is a partner practicing at the law firm Fisher & Phillips in Atlanta.

Mr. Foulke Goes to Washington

After his first encounter in Tennessee with OSHA in 1980, Foulke became involved with the agency’s regional work-site inspections in South Carolina. At the same time, he worked with the OSHA Review Commission, which is an independent federal agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review, and decides contests of citations or penalties resulting from OSHA workplace inspections. As a lawyer, he also defended clients’ safety violation citations. 

Foulke, who grew up just outside of Philadelphia, also devoted a great deal of his time to Republican politics, particularly presidential elections. In 1980, Foulke was working for Lee Atwater, the controversial GOP strategist and later the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who was running Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign in South Carolina.

After Reagan won the presidency, Atwater went to Washington as an adviser. At the request of Atwater, Foulke ran Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign in South Carolina. And when George H.W. Bush ran for president in 1988, Foulke again worked for Atwater in the Palmetto State on the future president’s campaign.

Following the elder Bush’s successful presidential campaign, Foulke was asked to work in Washington and ultimately landed a job as the chairman of the OSHA Review Commission in 1990, a position he held for five years — three years under Bush and two years under President Bill Clinton — before returning to practicing labor and employment law.

Foulke said he received a call from the George W. Bush administration in 2006 asking if he would return to Washington to serve as the assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, colloquially referred to as the agency’s chairman.

Compliance Assistance and Cooperation

During Foulke’s nearly three-year tenure as OSHA chairman, his philosophy on government was the guiding principle for how he ran the agency.

“I think the government should help individuals, citizens and businesses comply with the law and be successful. I think our enforcement was as strong as anybody else’s in previous administrations. But my emphasis was on trying to help employers comply with the law and have a better safety program,” Foulke said. “Hopefully that would help them be more successful and reduce their injuries and illnesses, which means they’d be more profitable, more competitive and able to keep jobs here in the U.S.”

Under the Clinton administration, OSHA was ‘kind of like a small-town sheriff that would hide behind a speed-limit sign that was obscured by a tree, and then write tickets to people driving through town who were speeding because they couldn’t see the sign.’

—Bryan Little, former deputy assistant secretary at OSHA

The emphasis on compliance assistance was the continuation of a policy shift at OSHA that had been set in motion during the George W. Bush administration. According to a New York Times report from 2007, OSHA under Bush issued the fewest significant safety standards since the agency’s creation in 1970, and one of which was ordered by a federal court. According to a survey conducted by Compliance and Safety, a Delaware-based supplier of workplace safety training videos, OSHA issued 0.3 new regulations per year under the Bush administration.

OSHA defended this relative lack of activity by claiming workplace deaths and injuries decreased during the Bush years. Between 2001 and 2008, the workplace fatality rate fell to 3.7 percent in 2008 from 4.3 percent in 2001, which was the lowest rate since the data were first collected in 1992.

Bryan Little, who was one of Foulke’s two deputy assistant secretaries at OSHA, described the agency under Bush as being more employer-friendly than it was during the Clinton administration.

Under Clinton, OSHA was “kind of like a small-town sheriff that would hide behind a speed-limit sign that was obscured by a tree, and then write tickets to people driving through town who were speeding because they couldn’t see the sign,” said Little, the director of labor affairs at California Farm Bureau Federation in Sacramento. “We tried to change the enforcement activities of the agency as much as we could so that they weren’t so adversarial.”

In addition to a conservative political philosophy, perhaps one explanation for the emphasis on compliance assistance lies with the fact that under George W. Bush, OSHA’s full-time staff numbers declined. According to OSHA, in 2001 there were 2,370 full-time OSHA employees compared with 2,118 in 2008. For comparison, the agency had 2,239 full-time employees before the 2013 sequester went into effect.

Considering these numbers, Foulke’s emphasis on compliance assistance becomes clearer: enforcement has defined limits; assistance doesn’t.

Foulke said enforcement is a necessary part of improving workplace safety, but with a fluctuating number of OSHA inspectors, the agency is only able to perform a limited number of inspections every year. It was common for an inspection to uncover no safety violations, because, in Foulke’s estimation, over 90 percent of all employers want to, and do, provide a safe workplace for their employees.

Little echoed Foulke’s belief that most employers try to make sure their workplaces are safe. “You have to recognize that a lot of employers are more than willing to follow the rules if you’re willing to give them a reasonable chance to understand what your expectations are,” he said. “We wanted to be an agency that was more of a partner to employers, who want to comply with the law and take care of their employees.”

Foulke pushed compliance assistance through OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program, which was established in 1982. He explained the program identifies employers who are “best of the best” when it comes to safety and health. Member sites include various General Electric Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Monsanto Co. plants.

According to OSHA, the program recognizes employers and workers in the private and public sectors with outstanding safety and health management systems, and that maintain injury and illness rates below the national average for their industries.

Foulke’s Legacy

In addition to the Voluntary Protection Program, Foulke established partnerships with business and trade associations that represented large segments of the workforce to cooperatively establish best practices for safety and health. The organizations allied with OSHA distribute newly established best practices to their employees or members, providing an inexpensive way for OSHA to reach a wider audience than usual, Foulke said.

The potential shortcomings of OSHA administrative policies that emphasize enforcement are highlighted by the Voluntary Protection Program and organization alliances. 

Similar to organizations partnered with OSHA, Foulke explained that companies in the program reach out to other local companies to help them improve their safety and health management systems. Member companies also encourage other organizations to strive for membership in the Voluntary Protection Program.

“You have current member-companies helping others be safer, so you’re ultimately protecting more employees,” Foulke said. “This way you could impact a much greater number of people than you could through general enforcement.”

Democrats and Republicans have embraced the program for the assistance it provides small employers in keeping their employees safe on the job. In his testimony before the House Education & the Workforce Committee, Jordan Barab, OSHA’scurrent deputy assistant secretary of labor, said the program is an “integral part of the toolbox the Congress has provided to OSHA” to improve workplace safety.

The position of assistant secretary of labor for OSHA is described as a thankless and difficult job served best by those with a sincere passion for improving worker health and safety. From what Foulke’s colleagues and independent sources in the safety industry said, he seems to have been a good fit for the job.

“When you take a look at Ed Foulke, he came in at a time with less than three years left in the Bush administration. It’s always a very difficult time to step into a role like that because the administration is already a lame duck,” said Aaron Trippler, director of government affairs for the American Industrial Hygiene Association. “The one thing you can say about Ed is that he was very passionate in making sure workers were protected in the workplace.”

As the decline in workplace fatality numbers during the second half of the 2000s show, OSHA was successful in its mission to improve workplace safety when Foulke was in charge. Not only did Foulke champion the Voluntary Protection Program and alliance programs during his tenure, he also implemented a succession plan at OSHA, which was the first for the agency.

Little praised his former boss’ ability to get involved with as many aspects of the agency as possible.

“A lot of the time he was as well-versed in the things that were supposed to be in my bailiwick as I was. I don’t think I could have done that,” Little said. “I don’t think I have the mental capacity to be aware and cognizant of as many things as Ed was able to manage at any one time. I think that’s what the agency needed.” 

When asked what he thinks is his legacy as the head of OSHA, Foulke said he hadn’t really thought about it. After pausing for a few seconds, he gave a modest reply.

“We were outreaching to all different groups to improve safety all across the board, and making sure OSHA was able to provide assistance to employers to help them be safer, which in turn meant they were going to be more successful. That’s kind of my legacy at OSHA,” he said.

Posted on

‘Free Speech’ Can Be Costly in the Workplace

In late March, many employees of the Silicon Valley-based tech company Mozilla Corp. took to social media to criticize or defend their then-CEO Brendan Eich after it was reported he donated $1,000 in 2008 to an organization that supported California’s controversial Proposition 8 ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

Eich was named Mozilla’s CEO on March 24, according to a Mozilla news release. The next day blog posts and other media stories about Eich’s political contributions began circulating online, sparking a social media backlash from Mozilla employees. Amid the intense public scrutiny, Eich voluntarily resigned his position April 3.

The Mozilla controversy brought the topic of free speech rights in the workplace to the forefront of the public forum. Strong arguments can be made in support or against Eich’s decision to voluntarily resign as Mozilla’s CEO. Though, when it comes to working for a private corporation, employees oftentimes falsely believe their First Amendment right to free speech fully applies at work.

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to free speech protected from punishment by the government. In most cases of private employment, however, political speech is not a protected right.

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to free speech protected from punishment by the government. In most cases of private employment, however, political speech is not a protected right.

An employer is able to separate itself from any employee viewed to be tarnishing the image it tries to present to the public, legal experts explained.

“In general, the First Amendment does not restrict a private employer’s ability to punish political speech in most states,” said Brian Wassom, a partner at law firm Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. “In most states, employment is at-will. If an employer finds an employee’s speech to run counter to the company’s values and image, there’s nothing preventing them from terminating that employee.”

While Eich voluntarily left Mozilla, his support of Proposition 8 could have been interpreted as an activity that did not align with the company’s commitment to openness and diversity – as many of Mozilla’s employees did.

Employee Activism

The social media response of Mozilla employees to Eich’s appointment is part of a growing trend of employee activism. According to a study published in April by global public relations firm Weber Shandwick, “employee activists draw visibility to their workplace, defend their employers from criticism and act as advocates, both online and off.”  

One in five employees can be considered an employee activist, the study found. Additionally, 33 percent of employees have high potential to become employee activists as well. The study also suggests employers should embrace employee activism and encourage more brand socialization. Brand socialization improves organizational transparency and could lead to an increase in engagement. For example, the research shows employees whose employers encourage social activism are significantly more likely to help boost sales than employees whose employers do not (72 percent vs. 48 percent, respectively).

“The employee activist movement should not be underestimated,” said Micho Spring, Weber Shandwick’s global corporate practice chair, in a written statement. “Identifying and activating employees willing to rise to levels of extraordinary support for their organizations should certainly be an important priority for CEOs.”

Although the study shows social media holds potential benefits for employers, there are risks involved as well, explained legal experts. Many employment lawsuits involving social media deal with issues regarding the National Labor Relations Act.

The act “protects line employees from adverse actions from employers based on statements concerning the terms and conditions of employment that are for the mutual aid and benefits of co-workers,” said Philip Gordon, chair of the privacy and data protection group at law firm Littler Mendelson in Denver.

There are two components that protect employee speech under the NLRA, Gordon explained. The first is that the speech must be concerning terms and conditions of employment, but those terms are broadly defined. For example, discipline or management performance could fall under terms and conditions of employment.

Secondly, the speech must be “concerted,” meaning speech concerning a workplace condition or term of employment that a group of co-workers would like to see changed. An employee could write a post on Facebook that criticized a management policy and thanked co-workers for getting together to discuss it.

To avoid a lawsuit, employers should understand laws like the NLRA and how it applies to social media. Likewise, employees need to realize their employer’s social media policy lest they lose a job over a careless tweet or Facebook post.

“Still, to this day, it’s surprising how few employees really appreciate the power of what they share online,” Wassom said. “The sorts of things we don’t punish in a water-cooler conversation may end up being posted online for the entire world to see. Employers need to really drive home the idea that employees need to think twice about what they post and why it can be more consequential online rather than whispered in a conversation around the water cooler.”

Posted on

Hey, Jealousy: Envy Blossoms Among In-House Workers

It may not be surprising that in the digital age 70 percent of employees say they would rather telecommute than work in their office.

It may, however, be surprising to learn 57 percent of employees say they are jealous of colleagues who are allowed to telecommute, according to a survey published by Deltek Inc., a global enterprise software company based in Herndon, Virginia. And when it comes to workers between the ages of 35 and 44, 81 percent said they’d prefer to telecommute. That number drops to 66 percent for workers between the ages of 18 and 24.

When some employees are offered the convenience of working from home and others aren’t, that’s when jealousy may start to arise — especially among older workers, working parents and those earning a high salary. According to the survey, 65 percent of workers over the age of 65 are jealous of their telecommuting co-workers. Additionally, 60 percent of working parents and 75 percent of workers earning more than $100,000 per year are jealous of colleagues who get to work from home, according to the survey.

But while most employees say they would rather work at home than in the office, and despite the possibility those employees who aren’t allowed to do so may get jealous of those who do, telecommuting isn’t a realistic option for all employees.

There are some jobs that require an on-site presence, said David Kirby, Deltek’s chief human resources officer. “There are times when, either due to technology difficulties or based on the nature of the job, someone’s role requires them to be in the office,” Kirby said.

Telecommuting is a benefit of certain kinds of jobs rather than a performance reward, added Jeff Eckerle, co-founder of Deltek’s Kona Project, which develops social collaboration software.

“Some people just have positions that require them to be in an office. They need to be there to do their job,” Eckerle said. “Telecommuting isn’t about, ‘Well, you deserve it, and you don’t.’ It’s really a function of what you do.”

An interesting finding of Deltek’s survey shows 64 percent of respondents believe email is an effective way to communicate within a group. This seems to suggest many workers are already collaborating remotely anyway, even when working in the office. And with the rapid pace of technological advances increasing the capabilities of remote communication every year, the expansion of telecommuting to more employees appears inevitable.

“Over the last 20 or 30 years, technology has really enabled telecommuting as a possibility,” Eckerle said. “There’s a whole new level of what next-generation collaboration tools are going to provide for employees working on common goals and purposes that are better than email communication, and it will make it even less necessary for people to be in the same room."

Max Mihelich is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Mihelich on Twitter at @workforcemax.

Posted on

Special Report: A Check on Background Checks

Before Edward Snowden was hired by the National Security Agency, his character was subjected to a deep background screening; the subsequent findings of that investigation indicated a clean history.

However, earlier this year Snowden leaked sensitive NSA surveillance secrets, sparking a national controversy despite his clean background check, which has since come into question.                               

But a clean background check was all the agency could get from the organizations that looked into the past of the now-infamous Snowden because, according to industry experts, there’s no such thing as a guarantee in the background checking industry.

“There shouldn’t be a guarantee because these things are not an absolute. Background screening is just one means of mitigating risk,” said Greg Dubecky, president of Corporate Screening Services, a background checking services provider in Cleveland.

The Snowden controversy serves as an example of how background screenings are just one process employers can use to ensure they’re hiring the right person. Such checks should function as a supplement to a thorough interview process, said Bill Tate, president of background screening company HR Plus in Chicago.

“Background screening and drug testing are only a couple tools you can use to make sure you have the right person. The interview process is still very, very critical: to ask the right questions and to listen and to ask additional questions. A background screen will never be a substitute for that,” Tate said.

While the accuracy of the information obtained from a background check is important, how an employer uses that information in the hiring process is crucial to avoiding discrimination lawsuits and potentially paying big fines.

Compliance Trends
Background checks have increased over the past 12 months, according to responses by screening companies surveyed for this month’s Hot List. (See next page.) All but one participant in last year’s Workforce Hot List reported increases in 2013 in either the number of individuals screened or corporate clients using employment-related screening services. Nine out of 15 Hot List participants reported increases in both categories.

It’s an industry that carries significance for most human resources departments: 69 percent of all employers conduct background checks on their job applicants, according to the Society for Human Resource Management’s 2012 background checking survey.  

Greg Dillard, a partner specializing in employment law at Vinson & Elkins in Houston, said he believes the growth of the Internet and the increasing ease of obtaining information has led to a jump in background screens. “Along with that, there’s been a growth in the number of accredited consumer reporting agencies. And I think that companies are feeling while there’s still a possibility of getting misinformation, they’re more comfortable with the reliability of some of the information,” he said.

The increases in background checks were preceded by new guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April 2012 (See: tinyurl.com/EEOCguidance).

Sources indicated the biggest trend in the background screening industry over the past 12 months has been trying to comply with the new EEOC guidelines, even though they were released more than a year ago.

The new guidelines have posed a challenge to employers “because it requires employers to identify essential job functions and the actual circumstances for which the job will be performed. You combine that with trying to determine specific criminal offenses that will make you unfit for the job, and it is a challenge for most employers to comply with,” Dillard said.

In July, nine attorneys general sent a letter to the EEOC expressing their concerns regarding the agency’s recent guidelines and its discrimination lawsuits against discount retail chain Dollar General Corp. and automaker BMW Manufacturing Co. stemming from the organizations’ use of background checks during the hiring process. According to the attorneys generals’ letter, the EEOC’s pursuit of these lawsuits is a “misguided and a quintessential example of gross federal overreach.”

But while it may be interpreted as a burden by employers, the EEOC believes its guidance is necessary to control the negative effect background checks could have on minority groups protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Background checks “could have disparate impact or disparate effect on protected classes under EEOC,” Dubecky said.

Disparate impact occurs when an employer imposes a neutral rule that in and of itself does not show discriminatory intent, but “in its application it affects one protected group much more than another,” said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman and senior attorney at the EEOC.

According to the EEOC, arrest and incarceration rates are particularly high for black and Latino males. Black and Latino people are arrested at a rate that is two to three times their proportion of the general population. If current incarceration rates do not change, about 1 in 17 white men are expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime; whereas, this rate climbs to 1 in 6 for Hispanic men; and to 1 in 3 for black men.

As a result, a hiring process that includes background checks has the potential to disparately affect black and Latino people.

The so-called “ban the box” movement is one recent trend to limit the disparate effect on minority job applicants by removing the section of an application where job candidates indicate if they have been convicted of a crime by a court of law.

As of July, 51 cities and counties have removed the box concerning criminal history, and 10 states have made it illegal for public and private employers to include it on job applications, according to the National Employment Law Project.

By removing that box, an employer must evaluate a job candidate as an individual and on his or her merits. A background check is still legal in those locations whose governments have eliminated that section on applications, but if a conviction is discovered, the employer must consider the nature of the crime and if it applies to the open position, the time passed since the conviction and the individual’s behavior during that time. It also must be determined if the conviction conflicts with business necessity.

For example, if somebody with a recent fraud conviction applies for a job working with personal identifiable information like Social Security numbers, that employer can decide to hire a different candidate because the prior conviction is job-related.

“If you’re hiring somebody with unfettered access to personal identifiable information like Social Security numbers or credit card numbers, there it might be consistent with business necessity and job related,” Lisser said. Background checking policies need “to be narrowly tailored, and you have to look at the individual in front of you instead of making blanket rules.”

Employers will have the best chance at avoiding discrimination lawsuits and defending against them if they have a written background checking policy that diligently follows the guidance provided by the EEOC, as well as the laws regulating the process under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

It’s not unusual for a company to have no written policy, Corporate Screening Services’ Dubecky said. “You’d be amazed at how many say, ‘Well, we don’t have one!’ These are Fortune organizations in some cases. That’s pretty alarming,” he said.

Other Trends
“Ban the box” is a part of a larger trend occurring in the background screening industry that has the process moving to the later stages of hiring. Some companies have started including the background check in the onboarding process, Dubecky said.

 “So organizations now, we’re starting to see, are building background screening into the onboarding process as opposed to what’s commonly done these days in recruitment,” Dubecky said. In this process, an employer makes a contingent offer to a job candidate and then conducts a background screen of the tentatively hired employee.

K.C. Lewis, director of human resources for HR Plus, said another trend she’s started to see is conducting background checks on an existing workforce every two to three years. Lewis said the practice allows employers to keep their employees safe in the workplace.

“Sometimes in HR, we find out about divorce situations and then you get into financial trouble and people will come to us in HR for an employee assistance program. But you know, one thing could lead to another. One of my responsibilities is to keep my employees safe when you get into those situations where there could be domestic violence, and I don’t want an ex coming into the office potentially looking for someone,” Lewis said.  

Assessing the Burden
It’s interesting to note the increases in background checks during the past year despite the increased compliance measures implemented by the EEOC in 2012.

Is the legislation and guidance regulating the industry not as burdensome as some employers and the nine attorneys general claim it is? Or is the increase in background checks, as Dillard suggests, because of the greater ability to obtain information through improvements in technology. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle, leaning toward the improved ease of conducting background checks in light of technological advances.

Regardless of the feeling that there has been too much burden placed on employers that conduct background checks, those burdens are here to stay for the foreseeable future.  

“Employers really need to be cognizant of the fact that the EEOC’s not going to rest even in light of those nine state’s attorney generals that wrote that letter. This guidance is here to stay. It’s for altruistic purposes, and they need to make sure that they comply,” Dubecky said.

Max Mihelich is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Mihelich on Twitter at @workforcemax.

Posted on

Economy, Obama Administration Policies Are Top Employer Priorities in 2013: Survey

Paying close attention to current economic conditions and Obama administration policies are the top priorities for employers in 2013.

According to a survey conducted by San Francisco-based law firm Littler Mendelson, a favorable economic climate has 60 percent of employers expecting to continue hiring this year, the same figure as last year. Additionally, 70 percent of survey respondents expect the Obama administration to assign a high priority to job creation in 2013.

“As the economy continues to recover, our findings suggest that employers are eager to expand their workforce and are starting to see a decline in the impact of some of the key obstacles facing workers,” Thomas Bender, co-managing director of Littler Mendelson, said in a written statement.

The study also shows 86 percent of employers expect the president to place a high importance on health care reform, and 82 percent believe immigration reform will be a high priority, as well.

An interesting survey finding concerning health care reform shows only 6 percent of respondents said they’ll be discontinuing health benefits for employees, opting to pay the associated fines once the Affordable Care Act’s “play or pay” mandate takes effect in 2015.

And when it comes to immigration reform provisions that will affect businesses, employers are hoping lawmakers make improvements to employment verification systems and increase the amount of temporary work visas allotted to highly skilled foreign workers, the study states. Employers indicated both provisions carry the potential to have the most positive impact on their businesses.

Additional issues employers are most interested in this year are whistle-blowing, workplace violence and social media, according to the survey.

Max Mihelich is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email mmihelich@workforce.com. Follow Mihelich on Twitter at @workforcemax.