Category: Archive

Posted on

Recruiting Blog Cheezhead Acquired by Jobing.com


Jobing.com said Wednesday, September 9, that it acquired popular HR blogger Joel Cheesman’s company and made him a senior vice president responsible for the job board’s interactive marketing and community activities.


Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed. However, it includes Cheesman’s sometimes-snarky Cheezhead.com blog as well as his other companies.


Cheesman has run a business, HRSEO, focused on search engine optimization. Recruitment search engine optimization involves helping organizations improve the way their job listings appear in the organic search results at search engines such as Google.


A more recent Cheesman business is HirePPC. That has involved helping clients to have their paid advertisements appear more prominently on job aggregation sites such as Indeed.com.


Cheesman will move from Cleveland to Jobing.com’s headquarters in Phoenix by late October or early November. All of Cheesman’s “handful” of employees will be offered jobs within Jobing.com, according to Aaron Matos, the company’s CEO.


The deal comes as blogs such as Cheesman’s have gained increasing clout in human resources, but also have come under scrutiny for issues including proper disclosure of conflicts of interest.


The acquisition explains the lack of Jobing.com posts on Cheezhead over the past three months, the time it took the parties to negotiate the deal, Cheesman said.


In a move that appears aimed to head off conflict-of-interest concerns under the new ownership, Cheesman said he will alter his blog’s content.


“As an independent third party, covering industry news was an important part of the Web site,” Cheesman said in a statement. “However, as part of Jobing.com, we will be evolving the content of the site for our employers, providing content relative to local recruitment.


“With the blog now becoming part of a competitor in the industry, we think it’s important to change the editorial direction of the Web site to no longer comment on specific industry players and will be modifying the current site’s content to be in alignment with this new vision.”


Matos adds that Cheezhead will be recast as a resource for employers and recruiters.


“We won’t be commenting on any of our competitors, positive or negative,” he said.


By adding a recognized community-builder like Cheesman, Jobing.com is following a course recommended by industry analysts and consultants for job boards to transform themselves into full-bodied career portals with services, content and message boards in addition to job postings—all the better to battle social networks like Facebook and Twitter that employers and recruiters are using more for hiring and other personnel needs.


“If you can do that, you can attract the passive talent most employers think” is more desirable, says Peter Weddle, a recruiting industry consultant based in Stamford, Connecticut.


Phoenix-based Jobing.com provides a locally focused job search Web site of the same name. It also offers job fairs and other career services. Jobing.com is a privately held, employee-owned company.


Matos worked in HR before starting Jobing.com in 1999 and since then has sought to distinguish it from larger competitors such as Monster and CareerBuilder by building a network of local job boards. In all, Jobing.com operates under 70 Jobing.com-affiliated names in about 30 cities, predominately in the Southwest but also in Florida and other parts of the country. The company has raised at least $50 million in venture financing from JMI Equity and Great Hill Partners.


“There’s no question that Joel is one of the strongest thought leaders in our industry, and he likes to challenge the status quo,” Matos said in a statement. “His experience in online marketing and his extensive involvement with multiple job boards and recruitment-related ventures makes him a huge asset to the Jobing.com team.”


A personal connection was behind the deal, according to Cheesman.


“I met Aaron in 2003. I think we’ve always had a great appreciation for each other and what we were doing, and kind of realized one day we’d do something together,” he said.


Jobing.com made a big splash in 2006 buying the naming rights to the sports arena used by the National Hockey League’s Phoenix Coyotes in a 10-year, $30 million deal, according to local news reports. The company has made a number of acquisitions from 2004 to 2008 to expand into new markets and spent lavishly at national HR trade shows.


But the start of the recession last year put a crimp on spending across the job board business. In late 2008, Jobing.com laid off some employees, though Matos wouldn’t say how many, and the company was noticeably absent from the exhibit floor at this year’s SHRM annual convention.


—Michelle V. Rafter and Ed Frauenheim
 
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

Recruitment Process Outsourcing Firm RightThing Acquires Capital H Unit

Recruitment process outsourcing provider The RightThing is acquiring the RPO business of Capital H Group, a Chicago-based HR consulting shop.


Under the acquisition, Findlay, Ohio-based The RightThing will absorb Capital H’s 20 employees in its RPO division, which is based in Milwaukee. Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.


The RightThing had been in talks to purchase the division for the past two and a half months, company president Jamie Minier said.


“They had an RPO division that they had tried to build up over the past couple of years but it was just the wrong time, so they have decided to focus on their core offering,” she said.


Neil McEwen, managing consultant at PA Consulting, said it makes sense for Capital H to sell off its RPO business and focus on what it does best—human capital consulting, a business that has been difficult for many players given the economy.


“Capital H Group has not been doing brilliantly like so many other consulting firms in the country, so I am sure that the infusion of cash would be helpful for them to focus on their core area, which is really human capital advisory services,” he said.


Shannon Litzell, a spokeswoman at Capital H, wasn’t immediately available for comment.


The announcement marks The RightThing’s first acquisition in almost two years. In February 2008, the company acquired recruitment training and sourcing technology vendor AIRS.


The Capital H RPO acquisition expands The RightThing’s geographic presence, McEwen said.


“This helps us be national in scope and helps us gain market share,” Minier said.


The company wouldn’t comment on what clients it is inheriting through the purchase.


“We also think that this announcement shows the industry that we are stable and are really striving to be the No. 1 leader in this market,” Minier said.


—Jessica Marquez


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

New York City-Area Chambers of Commerce Unite Against Sick-Days Bill

New York City’s chambers of commerce have joined forces to fight a bill—supported by an overwhelming majority of City Council members—that would compel employers to provide their workers with up to nine paid sick days per year.


The groups have formed the 5 Boro Chamber Alliance to oppose the measure, which they contend could force companies to rethink hiring plans or lay off workers.


“It’s as if the City Council doesn’t understand that we are trying to survive the worst economic downturn in 80 years,” said Tom Scarangello, of SCARAN, a family-owned heating and air-conditioning company based in Staten Island, in a statement released by the alliance.


The group plans to make its case in meetings with Councilwoman Gail Brewer, D-Manhattan, the bill’s primary sponsor; Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has yet to take a position; representatives of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has indicated a willingness to support paid sick days for large firms but has stopped short of embracing the mandate for small ones; and the 37 council members who have signed on to the legislation.


Under the proposal, companies with 10 or more employees would have to provide nine paid sick days per year, while those with fewer than 10 workers would need to give five days. Violators would be hit with $1,000 fines.


The bill’s opponents have their work cut out for them, as the council members who are behind it provide a wide enough margin to withstand a mayoral veto.


A coalition of community, labor and public health groups has argued paid sick days could help contain the spread of the H1N1 virus by encouraging workers to stay home if they, or their children, are sick. The group held a press conference at Department of Education headquarters Tuesday, September 8, to draw attention to public school parents who cannot afford to take off when illness hits.


A survey by the Community Service Society shows that 1 million New Yorkers, including 39 percent of public-school parents and two-thirds of low-wage workers, do not receive paid sick days.


The bill’s backers contend paid sick day mandates in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have not adversely affected small businesses, which benefit from increased productivity and a level playing field.


Their push is being backed by Korean and Hispanic business groups.



Filed by Daniel Massey of Crain’s New York Business, 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

Comp Cheats Confess All on Social Networking Sites

Workers’ compensation claims investigators are increasingly scouring popular social networking Web sites such as Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn to help insurers and employers fend off bogus claims.


Some claimants supposedly too disabled to work post locations and dates for their upcoming sports competitions or rock band performances, boast of new businesses launched and include date-stamped photographs of their physical activity, investigators say.


Others have openly bragged about fooling their employers with “Monday morning” workers’ compensation claims for injuries that occurred the weekend prior and away from the workplace.


Personal, self-incriminating data that claimants load on social media sites has increased the efficiency of investigations and video surveillance, which have been used for years to secretly record disability claimants engaged in physical activities, several sources says.


“It’s the new video camera,” Pierre Khoury, a special investigator for Harleysville Group Inc., a Harleysville, Pennsylvania-based insurer, says of the social networking sites. “Now we have a new kind of video camera, but we are not actually the ones filming. They are filming it for us.”


Social networking sites increase the efficiency of video recording and reduce investigation costs by eliminating time spent searching for claimants and waiting for them to engage in behavior that contradicts their claim, says Howard Schneider, president of Schneider Associates, a private investigative agency in Thousand Oaks, California.


To start with, investigators lacking a photograph or address to ensure they have identified the right claimant they were hired to tail might find a picture and address on MySpace, Facebook or other sites such as Twitter or Classmates.com, investigators say.


Then there is the listing of physical activities.


In one recent case involving a Los Angeles-area warehouse worker who filed a work-related back injury claim, traditional surveillance of his home proved fruitless, Schneider says.


So investigators found the claimant’s Facebook site and learned about his participation in bowling tournaments and a bowling alley he frequented.


“It just amazes us how much information people provide,” Schneider says.


An investigator visiting the bowling alley found a large banner congratulating the claimant for rolling a perfect game and the date he rolled the game.


“Which was post date of loss,” Schneider says. The investigator video recorded the banner for evidence and later video recorded the claimant competing in a tournament. To do so, the investigator mixed among spectators video recording their friends and family participating in the tournament.


“It was the easiest surveillance we ever had to do,” Schneider says.


It’s common for claimants to load their social networking sites with dates, easing the way for investigators and their cameras to find them.


In another case, a judo instructor who claimed a total and permanent back injury posted the dates and location of his judo classes, says Frank Pinder, president of the fraud and special investigations unit of GlobalOptions Group, an Orlando, Florida-based insurance claims investigation service.


A rodeo bronco rider also posted his competition dates. “We got videos of him riding a bucking bronco when he was not supposed to be able to get out of bed,” Pinder says.


There have been several cases of claimants who play in rock bands in their spare time. The workers list their engagement dates and then provide audiences with particularly physical concert performances, Pinder says.


Investigators provide the evidence for insurers, third-party administrators and self-insured employers, but rarely learn of the claims’ outcomes, they say.


Most of the evidence they collect is used to reject claims rather than to prosecute for fraud, several sources says. Yet some cases are referred for prosecution.


Alternative Service Concepts, a Nashville, Tennessee-based third-party administrator, for example, recently referred a case to Florida prosecutors in which a claimant’s Facebook posting tipped Global Options investigators to his business of selling jerky at flea markets, compromising his workers’ comp claim, an ACS spokesman says.


Social networking sites have become increasingly productive investigation tools because they are being used more by older audiences, Khoury says.


“The 30- and 40-somethings have taken it over and have caused the explosion” in social media use, says Khoury, who is a member of the Baltimore-based International Association of Special Investigation Units and has spoken to the association on the use of social media.


Additionally, Web crawlers and other tools used to scour the postings continually improve, making the sites increasingly productive, Khoury says.


Word of success fighting fraudulent claims is also driving more claims payers and their investigators to sift through social media, Pinder says. His organization dabbled in the practice and then got serious about digging though social sites five months ago.


He hired a technology company to develop a proprietary search tool he calls a “deep Web portal” that allows him to dig deeper into Internet information than “general purpose Web crawlers” allow, Pinder says.


“A lot of people post things they don’t expect the insurance carrier is going to be looking at,” Pinder says. “Their geology hobbies, reunions, bowling, the leagues they are involved in, fishing tournaments, hunting clubs … pastimes, organizations. Then you can further mine that for information [counter to] their claim.”

Posted on

Employer, Business Groups Push Private-Sector Health Care Reform Solutions


Twenty state chambers of commerce and employer groups have formed Employers for Quality Health Care, a new coalition advocating for private-sector solutions to the health care crisis.


Members include the chambers of commerce in Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota and other states; Associated Oregon Industries; the Iowa Association of Business and Industry; the Texas Association of Business; and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.


The coalition opposes an employer mandate and public insurance option as part of reform. In a letter to members of Congress and President Barack Obama, the group says it wants Medicare and Medicaid reform, tort reform, provider incentives for total outcomes, health savings accounts and small-business insurance pooling.


“We stand united in support of free-market reforms that promote choice and competition,” said George Israel, president of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, in a written statement.



Filed by Rebecca Vesely of Modern Healthcare, 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

Citigroup 401(k) Participant Lawsuit Dismissed


A federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of 150,000 participants in Citigroup’s two 401(k) plans, saying the company’s inclusion of company stock as an investment option did not violate its fiduciary duties under ERISA.


U.S. District Court Judge Sidney H. Stein on Monday, August 31, tossed out the lawsuit, filed on behalf of participants in Citigroup’s 401(k) Plan and the Citibuilder 401(k) Plan for Puerto Rico.


“Investment in Citigroup stock was presumptively prudent, and plaintiffs have failed to allege facts in support of a possible claim to overcome that assumption,” Stein wrote in his ruling.


Stein added that the two 401(k) plans “unequivocally required” that Citigroup stock be offered as an investment option, and thus “had no discretion and could not be acting as fiduciaries” with respect to the plans’ investment in company stock. According to the ruling, the inclusion of the company stock was mandated in the terms of the plans.


“This Court holds that neither the [Citigroup] Investment Committee nor any other plan fiduciary had a duty to override the plans’ mandate that Citigroup stock be offered as an investment option,” he wrote. “Not only does that holding accord with traditional principles of trust law, but it is consistent with ERISA’s language, structure, and purpose.”


He also ruled that plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to provide “complete and accurate” information about the financial condition of Citigroup to plan participants.


“Defendants did not have an affirmative duty to disclose financial information about Citigroup because ERISA fiduciaries are not required to provide investment advice,” Stein wrote.



Filed by Jeff Nash of Pensions & Investments, 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

Employee Testing After Ricci: What to Do Now

To help choose among job applicants or candidates for promotions, many employers use tests or other selection devices such as educational requirements aimed at predicting who is likely to do well in the relevant position. One risk of doing so is that such tests or devices, although neutral on their face, may screen out a disproportionate number of women, minorities or members of other protected groups. Upon learning that a test would have such an effect, an employer wary of facing a discrimination suit may be tempted not to use the test in deciding who to hire or promote.


On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such an approach can easily backfire. In seeking to avoid unconscious discrimination against some employees, an employer may intentionally discriminate against others. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the court held that scrapping a test because a statistically significant proportion of a particular race or sex did poorly on the test amounts to intentional discrimination against those who did well on it, unless the employer can show a “strong basis in evidence” for fearing that using the test would lead to liability.


Employers who learn that a test or other selection device has a discriminatory impact on some employees now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Using the test may lead to one kind of discrimination claim, while discarding the test may lead to another. That makes it more important than ever that employers think through the possible issues before using any test or selection device in making employment decisions.


Two kinds of discrimination
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits two types of employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion. First, the law prohibits intentionally treating one employee better than another because of such protected characteristics. This is called “disparate treatment” discrimination. Second, the law prohibits unintentional discrimination that results when an employer uses a test, selection device or practice that is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate adverse impact on members of a protected group. This is “disparate impact” discrimination. In the Ricci case, the court addressed what happens when an employer may face both kinds of claims from different groups of employees.


The court’s decision
The city of New Haven, Connecticut, used a written test to help decide which firefighters would be eligible for certain promotions. In reviewing the test results, the city discovered that the test had a statistically significant adverse effect on African-Americans. Not only was the passing rate for black firefighters only about half of what it was for whites, but none of the employees with top scores—the only ones eligible for promotion under city rules—was black. Understandably, the city worried that using the test would lead black employees to file, and probably win, a suit alleging that the test had a discriminatory racial impact, so the city decided not to use the test in deciding who could be promoted.


In what likely appeared to the city as a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” it was then sued by 18 firefighters (17 white and one Hispanic) who had done well on the test, alleging that the city had discriminated against them based on race by refusing to use the test and thus denying them a chance at promotions.


By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of those non-black employees, holding that they had been subject to intentional race discrimination by the city. The court acknowledged that the city’s test had a statistically significant adverse effect on blacks, but said that alone did not justify throwing out the results and thereby discriminating against white and Hispanic employees based on their race, given that the city had taken reasonable steps to make sure that the test was job-related.


To justify discarding a test, the court held, an employer must be able to show a “strong basis in evidence” that it will lose a disparate impact suit brought by employees who would be screened out if the test were used. Statistics alone are not enough. The employer must also present strong evidence that it will not be able to show that its test was “job related and consistent with business necessity,” or fend off a claim that it refused to use other methods that would have had a less discriminatory impact. In effect, the court said that there is only one way that an employer can avoid liability for disparate treatment discrimination if it walks away from a test it has already given, based on concern about possible liability for disparate impact discrimination. In such a case, the employer would have to show that the test was unrelated to the job for which it was used or did not serve an important business need, or that the employer had ignored ways of selecting employees that would have met the employer’s needs with a less discriminatory effect.


What the case means for employers
    If an employer gives a test or uses a selection device and then discovers that it has a disproportionate adverse effect on members of a protected group, it is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If the employer uses the test, it may be sued by members of that group for “disparate impact” discrimination. But if it decides not to use the test, it may be sued by those who did well on the test for “disparate treatment” discrimination. After Ricci, an employer facing the latter type of claim can prevail only by showing that its own test was largely irrelevant to the job for which it was being used, that the test was not closely aligned with the employer’s business needs, or that the employer rejected less discriminatory ways of meeting those needs. But having chosen and used a test, presumably based on some evidence that the test would accurately predict success in a job, few employers will be able to meet that burden.


For that reason, it is more important than ever for an employer to make a thorough evaluation of a test or other method of selecting among employees before giving the test or using that method.


An employer must weigh whether the test or method may have a disproportionate adverse effect on certain groups, whether other alternative tests or methods are available that may have a less discriminatory impact, and—most important—how accurate the test or method will be in correctly selecting those employees who are best able to perform the relevant job. By taking those steps in advance, employers will be best prepared to defend any resulting discrimination claim.


In particular, before administering a test or other method of selecting among employees, an employer should:


  • Consider whether the test or method is the best way to measure the skills, knowledge and qualifications needed to succeed in the job.

  • Do everything reasonably possible to make sure that the test, its passing rate and its cutoff scores will not have a disparate impact based on any protected characteristic. For instance, the employer may involve persons of diverse backgrounds in developing the questions.

  • Measure how employees who are currently succeeding in the relevant job do on a proposed test. If they do not do well, it will be hard to show that the test is valid.

  • Before using any test recommended by a vendor, ask the vendor these questions:

  • Has the test been vetted for disparate impact based on sex, race, national origin and other protected characteristics? If so, when and how? How confident are you that the test will not have significant disparate impact if we use it?

  • Do you offer alternative tests that are equally valid but have less disparate impact?

  • Has the test been professionally validated in compliance with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure? If so, how did the jobs for which the test was validated compare with the jobs for which we plan to use it, in terms of skills, qualifications, required knowledge and responsibilities? What studies have been done to measure the correlation between successful performance on this test and successful performance on equivalent jobs?

  • Do other employers use the test by itself or in combination with other factors? If the latter, what weight are test results given compared to the other factors?

  • Has the test been challenged as discriminatory by any government agency or employees? If so, what happened? How will you help us if that happens? Will your testing experts testify at depositions or at trial? At what cost?

  • If you give a test or use a selection device and discover statistically significant disparate impact::

  • Do not adjust the test scores or change cutoff scores to deal with the problem, because that is squarely prohibited by Title VII.

  • Do not throw out the results, or refuse to use the test or device, unless you are prepared to show that you will lose a Title VII discrimination suit brought by those disfavored by the test. Under Ricci, that is illegal discrimination.

    • Recognize that the holding in this case applies not just to employment tests, but to all policies or practices used to select among employees, such as factors used in deciding who to terminate in a reduction in force.

    By taking these steps, employers who use tests or other selection devices can maximize their likelihood of navigating between both types of discrimination claims.

    Posted on

    Employers Struggle With Communicating Benefits Cuts

    Salary freezes, salary cuts, shortened workweeks, halting 401(k) matches and layoffs are almost a daily event in many business sectors as employers navigate the tough economy.


    Employees are aware of the economic downturn, but experts say companies still should tread carefully when deciding how to communicate changes that usually mean less money in employees’ pockets.


    Transparency, without the spin, is a best practice for companies that are scaling back, says Nicole Melton, a Philadelphia-based senior consultant and communication practice leader with Watson Wyatt Worldwide.


    “We want [employers] to be straightforward and empathetic,” she says. “Be candid.”


    Showing employees the financial reasons behind the changes is key, says Ken Groh, a Chicago-based vice president of the communication group with Aon Consulting. “Show them exactly why you have to do this,” he says.


    That’s what JohnsonDiversey, a Sturtevant, Wisconsin-based provider of commercial cleaning products and services, did when it decided last year to switch from a traditional preferred provider organization health care plan to a consumer-driven plan and its retirement program from a pension to a 401(k) starting this year.


    Todd Blazei, vice president of total rewards for JohnsonDiversey, says the company was aware employees might view the changes negatively. That’s why the company spent months planning how it would break the news.


    In the end, JohnsonDiversey disclosed the changes in waves. First, the company’s CEO delivered what Blazei described as an in-depth video presentation discussing the company’s struggles in keeping up with rising health care costs and pension obligations.


    Then, employees received two newsletters within two months, highlighting the changes to their health benefits and retirement plans. Roughly one month before open enrollment began, JohnsonDiversey hosted town hall-style meetings, by phone and in person, for employee questions.


    By then, the affected 2,000 U.S.-based employees had few questions and concerns, Blazei says.


    “People understood why,” he says. “We presented a clear business case for making the changes. Employees heard the same message several times. It wasn’t watered down and they got the information.”


    Experts say such a super-informative method, delivered by those in key leadership positions, is the best way to approach employees with benefits changes. While companies may not have months to prepare, communicate and make benefits changes, they still should make a thorough presentation.


    Melton says one major pitfall for employers to avoid is assuming workers understand why the company is scaling back. Employees, she says, want to see the numbers. Companies that fail this sort of disclosure risk damaging employee morale, she says.


    There is a trust factor that gets lost when employers leave their employees out of the loop on specifics, says Groh. “This is particularly sensitive now because people think they did nothing wrong and they think that it’s the greed on Wall Street,” he says. “You can see why employees can be angry and demoralized.”


    That’s why experts say leadership visibility is important when a company makes changes. “There’s no room for innuendo,” Melton says.


    This leads to another pitfall for companies to avoid: the lack of empathy from frontline managers and top executives in initiating such changes, she says.


    “Employees do understand. … We’re inundated with the news on how the economy is affecting the world and employees want to know how solvent their company is, but they need to know this information is coming from human beings,” Melton says. “They want to know how this is affecting everyone in the company.”


    Memphis, Tennessee-based FedEx Corp. put empathy into play last year when it trimmed executive salaries within weeks of reducing retirement contributions, a company spokeswoman says. The point, she says, was for employees to understand that the economy was affecting the entire company, and not just those who deliver the packages.


    Not all companies, however, will tackle areas such as executive pay when trimming their budgets, and some may be operating in the black while still trimming employee benefits, experts agree. This can muddy the water when getting the message across, Melton says.


    “Dialogue between employers and employees is a must,” Groh says. “The message has to be, ‘We are in this together.’ Some companies have come out and said they do not want to lay people off, so instead they are going to a four-day workweek, for example. If you share the information the right way, people will get it.”

    Posted on

    TOOL Health Observances for September

    Employers seeking help in ensuring that employees are thinking about cancer prevention may find valuable resources through Welcoa this month: September is Prostate Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, Childhood Cancer Month and Leukemia & Lymphoma Awareness Month. Also in September are National Suicide Prevention Week (September 6-12), America on the Move’s September Campaign and National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. Check the Wellness Council of America’s site for information and materials you might share with your employees.

    Posted on

    AFL-CIO Targets Young Workers, Vows Renewed EFCA Effort

    Recruiting young members and enlisting them in legislative advocacy is a top priority for the AFL-CIO, which released a study Tuesday, September 1, showing that workers under 35 have been hit particularly hard by the recession.


    The survey of 1,156 people indicates 31 percent of young employees lack health insurance, a 7 percent increase from 1999, the last time that the AFL-CIO conducted a similar poll. Less than half—47 percent—have employer-sponsored retirement plans, a decrease of 6 percent.


    More than half of the young workers in the survey earn less than $30,000, and 24 percent said they can’t pay their bills—making them reluctant to buy homes and start families.


    “The findings reveal a lost decade for young workers in America,” the report states. “Not only have young workers lost financial ground over the past 10 years; they have also lost some of their optimism.”


    The AFL-CIO will try to convince them that unionization would improve their lives. Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO secretary treasurer, will present a plan to recruit young workers at the organization’s annual conference in Pittsburgh from September 13-17.


    “We’re reaching out to young people in an unprecedented way,” said Trumka, who is likely to be elected AFL-CIO president at the Pittsburgh meeting.


    Workers under 35 currently constitute 25 percent of AFL-CIO membership. Bringing younger workers into the union movement is an imperative for its survival. About 7 percent of private sector is unionized.


    In remarks at the Center for American Progress in Washington on Monday, August 31, Trumka said that unions must demonstrate their relevance to young workers by addressing issues such as telecommuting and portable health care and protecting contingent employees.


    “We can’t ask Millennials to change the way they earn their living to meet our model for unionism,” Trumka said. “We have to change our approach to unionism to meet their needs.”


    The AFL-CIO is depending on the political engagement young people showed in the 2008 election to carry over into battles for legislative priorities like the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for workers to organize.


    Unions argue the measure would boost wages and benefits by expanding collective bargaining. Opponents say that EFCA would effectively eliminate secret-ballot union elections and significantly raise labor costs.


    The bill is stalled in the Senate, where negotiations are under way to reach a compromise that will attract more moderate Democrats. The AFL-CIO will intensify its grass-roots and Capitol Hill lobbying after Labor Day.


    “We are more determined than ever to pass labor law reform this year,” said Arlene Holt Baker, AFL-CIO executive vice president. “We are confident that [wavering Democrats] will get there and that they will vote to support workers being able to freely join unions.”


    The business community vows to maintain its fierce anti-EFCA campaign.


    “We are going to aggressively engage on this issue as Congress returns to urge opposition to this job-killing legislation in any form,” said Keith Smith, director of employment and labor policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.


    —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.