Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Legal

Posted on October 16, 2009August 31, 2018

Ex-Ford Engineer Charged With Stealing Trade Secrets


A former Ford Motor Co. engineer has been charged with stealing trade secrets from the automaker after accepting a job in China in 2006.


Xiang Dong Yu, 47, was arrested Wednesday, October 14, at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago after traveling to the U.S. from China.


A federal indictment charges Yu, a Chinese national living in Beijing, with theft of trade secrets, attempted theft of trade secrets and unauthorized access to a protected computer, Terrence Berg, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said Thursday, October 15, in a statement.


Yu was a Ford product engineer from 1997 to 2007. In December 2006, he accepted a job at the China branch of a U.S. company, according to a Justice Department release announcing the charges.


The indictment, filed under court seal July 8, follows an investigation by the FBI. The indictment alleges that Yu copied 4,000 Ford documents, including sensitive design documents, onto an external hard drive after accepting his new job but before notifying Ford of his departure.


”We are aware of the issue and cooperating fully with authorities,” Ford spokesman Mark Truby said in an e-mail.


According to the Justice Department, the documents included design specifications for engine and transmission mounting subsystems, electrical distribution systems and electrical subsystems. The indictment alleges that Yu also tried to use Ford documents to get a job with a Chinese auto company in 2005 and again in 2008.


Yu continues to be held in Chicago and will have a detention hearing Tuesday, October 20, the Justice Department said.


The detention hearing will determine whether he is detained or is allowed to be released under certain conditions, Berg said in an e-mail to Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management.


Yu has not yet been formally arraigned and has not yet entered a plea.


Each of the counts of theft and attempted theft of trade secrets carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine, the Justice Department statement said. The count charging unauthorized access to a protected computer carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the statement said.



Filed by Amy Wilson of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on October 7, 2009August 31, 2018

House, Senate Bills Would Overturn Supreme Court Age Discrimination Ruling

For the second time this year, Congress will try to overturn a Supreme Court ruling on workplace law.


Senate and House bills introduced on Tuesday, October 6, would reverse a June court decision that made it more difficult for employees to sue for age discrimination.


The court held in Gross v. FBL that the plaintiff, Jack Gross, had to prove that age was the only reason that he was demoted from his job as a vice president at FBL Financial Group Inc. in Iowa when the insurance company Farm Bureau merged its Iowa and Kansas operations in 2002.


In a 5-4 decision, the court said that age couldn’t simply be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision; it had to be the decisive cause in order for age discrimination protections to take effect.


But Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and chairman of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, said that the Supreme Court was in effect “rewriting” the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.


The court “invented a new standard that makes it prohibitively difficult for a victim to prove age discrimination,” Harkin said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “This extraordinarily high burden radically undermines older workers’ ability to hold employers accountable.”


A bill written by Harkin and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, clarifies that when a victim shows age to be among the reasons for an adverse job decision, an employer must prove that it would have taken the action regardless of the employee’s age.


Titled the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, the bill has a House companion introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.


It’s too early to tell how the measure might affect employers, according to Leslie Silverman, a partner at Proskauer Rose in Washington and a former member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Much will depend on the legislative details.


“Is it a narrow bill that puts the law back to where most folks thought it was before the ruling or does it have broader ramifications?” she said. “The Gross decision didn’t change the way employers do business, but it did make it much harder to prove age discrimination.”


The legislation represents a second move by Congress this year to overturn a Supreme Court decision. In January, it passed a measure that would renew the statute of limitations each time an employee receives a paycheck that is diminished by a discriminatory act.


The legislation, called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, upended a court ruling that narrowly interpreted the time frame for filing pay suits. It was the first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law.


The Ledbetter bill was killed in a Senate filibuster in April 2008. It also met resistance from then-President George W. Bush, who vowed to veto it.


But now Democrats have 60 members in their caucus—enough to squelch a filibuster—and a Democratic president in the White House.


“We’re going to get it done this Congress,” Harkin said. The congressional session runs until December 2010. “We won’t be facing a veto threat from this president, and that will make it much easier to move.”


Another factor that could give the bill momentum is strong support from AARP, the huge advocacy organization for older Americans.


“Unless Congress passes this bill, too many older workers who have been victims of arbitrary age discrimination will be denied their day in court,” Nancy LeaMond, AARP executive vice president of social impact, said at the Capitol Hill news conference.


Supporters of the legislation said that workers over 55 have been hit especially hard by the recession. More than 2 million in that age group are jobless. About 25,000 age discrimination cases were filed in fiscal year 2008, a 30 percent increase from 2007, according to the EEOC.


“Older workers are disproportionately being laid off in this economy,” Miller said. “They’re the first to go. They’re the last to be rehired.”


Gross, who consistently earned strong performance reviews, said that workplace fairness can gain support across the aisle.


“This issue transcends politics and presents an opportunity for both parties to come together and protect their aging constituents back home,” he said.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.



 

Posted on October 6, 2009August 3, 2023

High Court Seeks Obama Administration’s Views on San Francisco Health Care Law


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, October 5, asked the Obama administration for its opinion on whether it should review a ruling upholding San Francisco’s controversial health care spending law.


The San Francisco law, which went into effect last year, requires employers with at least 100 employees to make health care expenditures of $1.85 per hour for every employee working at least eight hours per week. For employers with 20 to 99 employees, the contribution is $1.23 per hour. Employers with fewer than 20 employees are exempt from the spending mandate.


Expenditures can include payment of group health insurance premiums and contributions to health savings accounts, health reimbursement arrangements or a city fund.


In Monday’s request, the Supreme Court asked U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the administration’s views on whether the justices should consider the case.


The Golden Gate Restaurant Association challenged the law on grounds that the law ran afoul the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which pre-empts state and local laws and rules relating to employee benefit plans.


However, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the law unanimously in 2008 and the full appeals court in March declined to review the panel’s decision.


Earlier this year, the Obama administration declined to file a friend-of-court brief in the case. The Labor Department said the government generally does not file unsolicited briefs with the Supreme Court at the petition stage.


However, the Labor Department during the Bush administration a year earlier filed an amicus brief with the federal appeals court that argued ERISA pre-empts San Francisco’s law.


President Barack Obama has supported the San Francisco law.


“Instead of talking about health care, mayors like Gavin Newsom in San Francisco have been ensuring that those in need receive it,” the president said during a February meeting with mayors.


Business groups worry that if the law is allowed to stand, it would set the stage for other state and local governments to pass their own health care spending measures, and result in multistate employers having to comply with a hodgepodge of health care benefit requirements.



Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on October 2, 2009August 31, 2018

Senate Finance Committee Keeps Insurer Fee in Health Care Reform Legislation


The Senate Finance Committee has rejected an amendment that would have removed a $6.7 billion annual fee on health insurers that is included in a health reform bill the panel is considering.


Continuing its lengthy deliberations on the reform bill, the Senate committee voted 13-10 on Wednesday, September 30, against the amendment by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to remove the annual fee that he said ultimately would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.


Income from the fee is intended to help fund health insurance premium subsidies that would be provided to the low-income uninsured.


Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said he plans to trim the Senate’s traditional weeklong Columbus Day recess to two days to enable the full Senate to consider health care reform legislation in mid-October.


It isn’t clear yet, though, when the Finance Committee will complete action and when Senate Democratic leaders will meld that panel’s measure with a bill already approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to put one bill before the full Senate.



Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management‘s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on October 2, 2009August 31, 2018

Senate Panel Stiffens Employer Fees in Health Care Reform Bill


Employers that do not provide health insurance or provide coverage that is not considered affordable would lose a tax break under an amendment to a health care reform bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee.


Under the reform measure put together by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, employers not offering health insurance would be assessed a fee to partially offset premium subsidies provided to lower-income employees who purchase coverage through state insurance exchanges that would be set up under the bill.


The fees—based on the cost of those subsidies and subject to an annual cap of $400 times the total number of a company’s employees—also would apply if the premium charged by an employer exceeds 10 percent of an employee’s income and the employee obtains coverage through an exchange. The fees would apply only to employers with more than 50 employees.


Under an amendment proposed by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, and approved Wednesday, September 30, by the Senate committee on a 14-9 vote, employers would not be allowed to take a tax deduction for those fees.


Revenue generated by eliminating the tax deduction for such fees would be used to offset revenue lost from another change included in Nelson’s amendment—individual tax deductions for medical expenses.


Baucus’ proposal would allow individuals to deduct medical expenses only if they exceed 10 percent of a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income, up from the current threshold of 7.5 percent. Under the Nelson amendment, the 7.5 percent threshold would continue for taxpayers age 65 and older, while the 10 percent threshold would apply for everyone else.



Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on September 24, 2009August 31, 2018

Sexual Orientation Bias Bill Starts Moving Again

A bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation has once again begun a legislative journey, this time carrying a controversial provision on gender identity that was dropped by the wayside in a previous Congress.


The Employment Non-Discrimination Act prohibits businesses with 15 or more employees and government agencies from using sexual orientation or gender identity to make employment decisions.


In 2007, the House approved the bill after the gender identity portion was excised. The amended measure also gained the support of the Society for Human Resource Management.


Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and a champion of the measure, took out the gender identity provision in the previous iteration of the bill because otherwise he didn’t have the votes to get it through the House.


“I hope we will now,” he said at a Wednesday, September 23, hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee.


Democrats in the House strengthened their hand in the last election. They now have a commanding 256-177 majority. On the Senate side, there are 59 Democrats, pending the replacement of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy in Massachusetts.


When they reach 60, Senate Democrats will be able to overcome Republican filibusters. In 2007, Republicans had enough senators to block the sexual discrimination bill. In addition, President George W. Bush threatened to veto it. President Barack Obama has vowed to sign the measure if it gets to his desk.


Supporters say the bill would end the fear that people have of being fired because of their sexual orientation. They point to the fact that 38 states do not have laws banning such discrimination.


But the business community is leery of how the gender identity protection would be implemented in the workplace.


Camille Olson, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, testified that the bill is ambiguous about standards that companies with transgender workers must meet for “shared facilities,” which could include dressing rooms and restrooms. She also said that it is unclear whether companies would have to modify offices and production centers.


SHRM has not taken a position on this year’s version of the bill because it is trying to figure out what the impact will be on HR professionals.


“The inclusion of gender identity makes the legislation more complicated for everyone,” said Michael Layman, SHRM manager for labor and employment. “Any sort of employment discrimination law can lead to consequences that affect how business operates on a practical, day-to-day basis.”


Layman and others in the business community emphasize that employers have a strong record on sexual orientation diversity.


The Corporate Equality Index 2010, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, says that 434 of the Fortune 500 companies have implemented nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Those policies extend to gender identity for 207 companies.


But advocates for the bill said that they are trying to help millions of gay, lesbian and transgender people who don’t work for the nation’s largest companies.


In her testimony, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, cited a recent study by the American Civil Liberties Union that shows that one in four homosexual employees experiences discrimination on a weekly basis.


“They are harassed. They are fired. Or they are passed over,” she said.


Rep. George Miller, D-California and chair of the House labor committee, called a ban on sexual discrimination imperative for improving U.S. workplaces.


“If we do nothing, untold numbers of American workers will continue to go to work with the legitimate fear that they could be fired for nothing more than who they love or their gender identity,” Miller said.


The ranking Republican on the panel, Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, warned that the bill “creates an entirely new protected class that is vaguely defined and often subjective” and would lead to an “explosion in litigation.”


But Stuart Ishimaru, acting chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, downplayed the fear that courts would be clogged with sexual orientation suits. He said that has not been the case in states that ban such discrimination and he expects the same result at the federal level.


“We don’t believe that the numbers will be extraordinary,” Ishimaru said.


—Mark Schoeff Jr. 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.



 

Posted on September 16, 2009August 31, 2018

Senate Panel Releases Trimmed-Down Health Reform Plan


The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a much-anticipated health reform plan Wednesday, September 16, that has allayed some employer concerns while introducing a controversial tax on high-cost health plans.


Gone from the proposal released by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, is a public plan option. Many in the business community believed such a plan—essentially a Medicare-like publicly run insurance plan—would shift more health care costs to employers. Instead, it calls for the creation of nonprofit, member-run health cooperatives that would operate in the individual and small-group markets.


Baucus said the committee also removed an employer mandate. In its place is what critics call a “backdoor mandate”—a requirement that employers pay for subsidies provided by the federal government to help employees purchase their own health insurance.


The America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, released as a “chairman’s markup” because it does not yet have the full support of Republicans on the committee, would cost an estimated $774 billion over 10 years, which is less than the $1 trillion price tag of proposals in the House and the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.


“It ain’t perfect, but it is certainly a vast improvement over the other bills we’ve seen so far,” said James Gelfand, senior manager for health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “This is a much better place to start the conversation.”


To pay for health care reform, the finance committee is proposing a 35 percent excise tax on insurers for employer-sponsored health plans that exceed $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families in 2013.


A family health plan is expected to cost $16,949 annually by 2013, according to research published Tuesday, September 15, by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. In the case of self-insured employer health plans, the tax is applied to the plan’s administrator.


“For example,” the chairman’s draft states, “for an employee who elects family coverage under a fully insured health care policy covering major medical and dental with a value of $28,000, the amount subject to the excise tax is $7,000 ($28,000 less the threshold of $21,000). The employer reports $7,000 as taxable to the insurer, which calculates and remits the excise tax to the IRS.”


Gelfand said the chamber would prefer the tax be applied to individuals rather than the insurance industry, which he believes will pass the cost on to consumers.


The tax would generate $215 billion over 10 years, according to a preliminary review of the plan by the Congressional Budget Office. Over time, what constitutes a high-cost health plan would grow with inflation, a point that employers say is a problem because medical costs have been rising at least two times faster than inflation.


“Considering the cost of health insurance has doubled over the last 10 years, this [tax] could very quickly hit everyone,” Gelfand said.


The health insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans applauded the committee’s proposal but reiterated its opposition to a public plan in the form of health cooperatives.


The 223-page plan from Baucus shares basic elements with proposed legislation in the House and in the Senate HELP Committee, including a requirement that all individuals purchase insurance or face a penalty of up to $3,800 a year for families. The bill would also create a national health insurance exchange where consumers and small employers could purchase health plans.


Like other proposals, it would reform insurance regulations to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or based on annual or lifetime limits. It states that insurance companies could rate individuals and small group plans based only on age, tobacco use and family size, though insurers would be limited in how much they could raise premiums. Insurers would also have to provide tobacco cessation programs if they raised rates on people who smoke.


While many of the reforms would not take effect until 2013, consumers who have been denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions would have immediate access to a high-risk insurance pool created by the federal government.


Despite forgoing an employer mandate, the bill could hit companies that employ more than 50 people with penalties if they do not provide insurance deemed acceptable or affordable.


A plan would meet the “minimum creditable coverage” requirement if it offers benefits on par with high-deductible health plans with health savings accounts. It would be considered affordable if the plan’s cost to employees does not 13 percent of their gross adjusted income.


If employers’ plans are neither affordable nor acceptable, employees would be eligible to opt out of employer-sponsored health insurance and buy coverage through a health insurance exchange, where they could be eligible for federal subsidies. In such cases, an employer would be required to reimburse the government for any federal subsidies given to its employees.


This provision has brought opposition from retailers and other employers that hire low-wage workers.


Neil Trautwein, vice president of the National Retail Federation, called it a “backdoor mandate,” though he praised the decision to drop an earlier “free rider” proposal that would have required employers to pay for the cost of providing Medicaid to employees.


“We’re never going to support an employer mandate because we are such a labor-intensive industry and we have little room to pass costs on to customers,” he said.


Another change allows individuals 25 or younger to purchase a “young invincible” policy that would only provide catastrophic coverage.


Thomas D. Snook, an analyst at actuarial firm Milliman, said allowing young people to purchase catastrophic plans would make it more likely they could comply with an individual mandate. It could, however, increase costs for older, sicker individuals, since the young invincibles would contribute less to the overall risk pool.


The finance committee plan also introduces new provisions that could make insurance more affordable for individuals and small employers. Under the plan, insurers would be allowed to create multi-state plans for small groups and allow them to circumvent state insurance mandates unless such a requirement exists in 26 or more states.


Individuals would also be allowed to use pretax dollars to purchase health insurance.


The bill, while appealing to employers, must be approved by the Senate Finance Committee before being introduced as legislation.


—Jeremy Smerd


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on September 15, 2009August 31, 2018

Court Cites Ledbetter Law in Reversing Its Prior Decision in Equal Pay Case


An employer’s refusal to respond to an employee’s request for a pay raise can be a violation of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, a federal appeals court has ruled in reversing its own earlier decision.


In its original March 24 ruling in Mary Lou Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia affirmed a lower court’s ruling that had dismissed a claim filed by Mikula under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Mikula, a grants coordinator hired in 2001 by the Allegheny County Police Department, had lobbied unsuccessfully for a salary increase, arguing that a man in a comparable position was paid $7,000 more a year. When the pay raise was not granted, she sued under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.


In January, President Barack Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which eases time limits on age discrimination claims. The law states that an unlawful employment practice occurs when an individual becomes “subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.”


In its original ruling, the court “acknowledged the passage of the Act and explained that it did not change the result because it required the adoption of a discriminatory compensating decision rather than, as in this case, a request for a raise that was never answered,” according to the opinion.


However, in seeking a rehearing, “for the first time, Mikula defines her claim as a ‘classic paycheck accrual’ case, which, she asserts, is exactly the type of claim that the act was passed to protect. She claims that the county’s lack of response to her raise requests qualify as discriminatory pay decisions or ‘other practices.’ … Under this rationale, each paycheck that Mikula has received is discriminatory and constitutes a new violation that renews the statutes of limitation,” the court said in its revised ruling September 10.


“Despite our earlier decision, we now hold that the failure to answer a request for a raise qualifies as a compensation decision because the result is the same as if the request had been explicitly denied,” the appeals court said in the ruling that sets a precedent.


The court also reinstated its March decision upholding Mikula’s Equal Pay Act claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.



Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on September 14, 2009June 29, 2023

A Small Government With Big Training Goals

John West doesn’t need much prodding to espouse the value of workplace learning. Broad-shouldered and gregarious, West in 2006 earned a promotion to the job of lead technician in the buildings and grounds department of Chesterfield County, Virginia, a regional government near Richmond. Chesterfield is home to about 311,000 people, making it the fourth-largest county in the state, according to U.S. Census figures.


    West, 53, manages a team of technicians whose job is to maintain the heating and cooling systems for about 70 county-owned facilities. He credits his advancement to intensive leadership training through the county’s Chesterfield University, which is modeled on corporate university programs.


Instruction on how to effectively motivate and lead had a huge impact on West. “It showed me different ways to lean on other people, learn from them and how to think out of the box,” West says.


Now, with evangelical zeal, West preaches the gospel of continuous learning to his six-member team of technicians. It’s important for them to keep abreast of changing industry technologies, although West also stresses interpersonal skills.


“It’s like I tell them: You’ve got the toolbox you bring to work in your truck every day. And then you’ve got the toolbox up here,” West says, tapping his temple for emphasis. “You’ve got to make sure both tool sets are sharp.”


West is one of thousands of county employees enrolled in courses through Chesterfield University. He estimates he has taken about 440 hours worth of training and says he “usually is involved in at least one class.”


The university’s format provides a uniform model to deliver training to the county’s 4,500 workers, replacing what had been a mishmash of learning programs within individual departments. Courses are segmented into six “schools of learning” that target eight areas of competence deemed essential to carrying out the county’s long-range strategy.


    The curriculum is designed to support the county’s seven strategic goals. The hallmark of the plan is to provide services to Chesterfield citizens, and much of the learning is geared “to improve the actual service delivery, or the processes and procedures that make it happen,” says Kevin Bruny, the county’s chief learning officer and Chesterfield University’s dean.


The competencies are: communication, continuous learning, leadership, planning and organizing, interpersonal skills, flexibility, reasoning and customer-focused service.


“The idea is simple: If you have these competencies, you should be well-prepared to help deliver on that strategy,” Bruny says.


Corporate universities have been on the training scene for a while, but the format remains rare in the public sector. Chesterfield’s efforts have not gone unnoticed, however. In 2008, for the third consecutive year, it was the only local government to receive a best practices award from the Corporate Learning Exchange, a training organization in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The award recognized Chesterfield County’s ability to link learning to its business strategies.


“They definitely demonstrate some exemplary practices: strong governance structure, engaging their leaders in the teaching process, demonstrating the impact the programs have on cost savings and reengineered processes,” among other things, says Sue Todd, president of Corporate University Exchange.


According to its annual report, Chesterfield County invested $3.4 million in employee training and development in 2008, a one-year jump in expenditures of nearly 10 percent. The rise in spending reflects increased hiring in recent years. Nearly 2,250 courses have been offered through Chesterfield University, with cumulative learning approaching 274,000 hours.


On average, individual employees received 61 hours of training last year, roughly twice the average for government, Bruny says. He cites data compiled by the American Society for Training & Development in Alexandria, Virginia, to buttress his point.


Chesterfield University also turned a profit in 2008, generating nearly $68,000 in new revenue by delivering custom training courses to other local governments, nonprofits and small companies. That’s nearly three times its annual revenue target of $25,000.


Still, like state and local governments across the country, slumping tax revenues have forced some difficult decisions. The budget crunch caused Chesterfield to scrap its plans to purchase and implement a learning management system in 2010. As a consequence, an LMS manager hired by Bruny last year was recently let go.


Also as part of a budget-reduction effort, county policymakers decided to merge Chesterfield University and the county’s quality assurance department, creating a new umbrella organization known as the Center for Organizational Excellence.


Despite a tumultuous 2009, Bruny wears a brave face.


“It has been a challenge to get to this point, but I think it will provide a fresh new step in the county’s quality and learning journey,” Bruny says.


Stuck in class
Chesterfield University was officially launched on an inauspicious date: September 11, 2001. It took a while for the university to get on its feet, but in March 2003 it formally became independent of the county’s human resources department. Now, HR provides support as needed. Steering the day-to-day direction of the university is a six-member council on learning, composed of three county administrators and the deans of three of the university’s schools.


The deans include the county sheriff and the chiefs of its police and fire departments. In addition, a volunteer advisory board of about 100 employees helps with governance, instruction and creation of the lessons. Employees are permitted to suggest learning content, but only ideas that advance strategic goals are considered.


“If we can’t find a connection, we’re not going to waste time on it,” Bruny says.


Classroom instruction remains the preference for Chesterfield’s workforce, which has a median age of 42. Getting people to use online and technology-based learning tools will take some time.


“We see it as turning a large ship: It happens very slowly,” Bruny says.


Online instruction increased, albeit slightly, for the second straight year in 2008, in part thanks to its incorporation into several certificate programs. Among the bright spots is the Chesterfield Police Department, which is trying to recruit younger police officers. It has begun creating its own online courses and using podcasts and other technologies to deliver professional coursework.


“They’re really getting on the online bandwagon by creating their own courses and doing lots of podcasting. I would like to see more of that” at other departments, Bruny says.


The inspiration for Chesterfield University comes from a similar effort by the Santa Barbara County in Southern California. Known as Employees’ University, it arose several years ago out of the county’s quest to develop a performance-based budgeting process.


That meant ensuring the county’s 4,000 employees possess certain ethical behaviors and attitudes, says Mike Brown, Santa Barbara County’s executive officer.


“Governments exercise power within society, so it’s very important that people who work in government understand their special responsibility. We’re not selling fizzy water or used cars or insurance. We’re doing things that people really don’t have much choice about,” Brown says.


Practical application
In corporations, the line of authority between executives and employees is usually clear. But it’s not quite so easy to connect the dots in the public sector. Case in point: Santa Barbara County, working with union representatives, winnowed the number of classifications for clerical jobs from 28 to three. That makes it easier for top decision-makers to pinpoint clerical workers who show the potential for rapid advancement, Brown says, and enables those employees to better “control their destiny.”


Chesterfield County’s employees have more than 650 job classifications, so it faces a task as daunting as that of Santa Barbara County. The classifications encompass a broad scope of professionals, as well as the support staff. Included among Chesterfield’s job classifications are engineers, accountants, psychologists, social workers, police officers, firefighters and financial analysts.


The trick is to design learning that is at once narrowly targeted and comprehensive. Certification programs are being developed by the county’s various schools of learning to steer people toward a career path. More than 140 employees graduated from certification programs in 2008, Bruny says.


To earn the certificate, employees often are required to complete a “capstone project,” which they choose with input from their supervisors. It gives them the chance to apply their learning to a specific issue within their departments.


In addition, some departments, with help from HR, are developing apprenticeships for mechanical and technical positions.


“We can’t compete with the private sector for our technicians, so we needed to start developing our own people,” Bruny says.


West, who is the lead technician, tries to blend technical and leadership training. To keep his crew up to date with changing technologies, West rotates his technicians through required training classes. Rather than sending every technician, though, only one is selected to attend each class.


Upon completing the class, the technician is required to give a formal presentation to the others. The trained techs also get involved in creating training booklets, videos and other materials that become a reference archive for use by future technicians. The presentations are part of each technician’s professional development plan.


It saves departmental time to have one person share class content with peers. Although initially wary about making the presentations, West’s technicians seem to have warmed up to the idea.


“Now they come up [afterward] and say. ‘I learned from that experience,’ ” West says.


Chesterfield University also plays a role in succession planning. Three separate needs assessments conducted during the past five years have helped to identify about 120 potential leaders across the upper echelon of the organization, Bruny says.


The process helps individual departments create their own depth charts and target high-potential employees for special training, even though “they don’t necessarily know why they’re being invited to participate” in classes, Bruny says.


Despite budgetary issues, Bruny harbors some ambitious goals for 2010. New courses are planned to help the county’s 500 middle- and upper-level managers improve their skills. Expanded efforts at blended learning are on the drawing board, as are plans to improve measurement and reporting of employee learning.


Additionally, Bruny says the county is trying to hammer out an agreement with an undisclosed college. If approved, it would enable employees to gain college credits for courses pursued through Chesterfield University.


If successful, Chesterfield’s credit courses would be similar to what Santa Barbara County achieved. The California county’s Employees University enables workers to pursue degrees in public administration under a partnership agreement with California State University, Northridge, Brown says.

Posted on September 3, 2009August 31, 2018

Recent Settlements Should Alert Employers

In Washington, a state judge has given final approval to a settlement between Wal-Mart and a class of more than 88,000 workers for working off the clock and during meal and rest breaks. Wal-Mart will pay up to $35 million to the class. In response to the litigation, Wal-Mart has implemented a clockout/lockout program which locks associates out of electronic devices, including computer terminals, if they are not clocked in for work on Wal-Mart’s time clock. This Washington case is one of 63 wage and hour suits across the country that Wal-Mart is in the process of settling. (Barnett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wash. Super. Ct., No. 01-2-24553-8, 7/20/09)


In a second case, a federal district court in Maryland approved a $112,871 settlement and consent decree of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suit claiming that Medical Health Group violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by firing an employee, Barbara Metzger, who was undergoing breast cancer treatment one week before she was to return to work from an approved medical leave. Although Metzger told Medical Health that she planned to work full time, Medical Health presented her with a termination letter stating that she was too sick to return to work. Under a three-year consent decree, Medical Health is to provide equal employment opportunity training for its managers and human resources personnel and to post workplace notices in two locations informing employees of the settlement and stating its commitment to ADA compliance. (EEOC v. Med. Health Group Inc., D. Md., No. 09-cv-803, consent decree entered 7/20/09)


Impact: These two settlements provide examples of preventive measures that an employer should consider taking to avoid litigation. In addition to paying employees for all hours worked and making rest and meal breaks available where required by law, electronic tracking programs may provide for increased accuracy of time recording. Employers should also ensure that their employee handbooks and policies are updated regularly to comply with the law, and that employees, management and human resources personnel are aware of employee rights and responsibilities.


The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 … Page 70 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress