Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mandatory hiring of disabled workers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Mandatory hiring of disabled workers

    The Obama administration is promoting a new rule requiring federal contractors to have a target of 7% of their workers be disabled. An employer will have to certify annually what % of their workforce is disabled. Oh yes, under the ADA, employers are prohibited from asking about disabilities. That creates an interesting problem. Solutions anyone?
    Tom

    "Blessed are the pessimists, for they hath made backups." Exasperated 20:12

    #2
    Originally posted by TomRL View Post
    The Obama administration is promoting a new rule requiring federal contractors to have a target of 7% of their workers be disabled. An employer will have to certify annually what % of their workforce is disabled. Oh yes, under the ADA, employers are prohibited from asking about disabilities. That creates an interesting problem. Solutions anyone?
    Voluntary self reporting. Many employment forms currently provide the opportunity to voluntarily self report one's race and also ask if an applicant qualifies for veteran hiring preference.

    One could also ask an applicant if they would like to inform the employer of any adaptations they might require to perform the job tasks should they be the successful applicant.
    Foolish

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

    "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

    "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

    Comment


      #3
      7% of workforces be people with disabilities.

      Please note as quote, "The U.S. Department of Labor is proposing a new rule that would require federal contractors and subcontractors to set a hiring goal of having 7 percent of their workforces be people with disabilities, ..."

      Ti

      http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/o...CP20111614.htm

      News Release


      OFCCP News Release: [12/08/2011]
      Contact Name: Laura McGinnis or Mike Trupo
      Phone Number: (202) 693-4653 or x6588
      Release Number: 11-1614-NAT

      US Labor Department seeks to improve job opportunities for Americans with disabilities by setting historic hiring goal for federal contractors and subcontractors

      WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor is proposing a new rule that would require federal contractors and subcontractors to set a hiring goal of having 7 percent of their workforces be people with disabilities, among other requirements. The department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs invites public comment on this proposal, which will be published in the Dec. 9 edition of the Federal Register.

      OFCCP's proposed rule would strengthen the affirmative action requirements established in Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 obligating federal contractors and subcontractors to ensure equal employment opportunities for qualified workers with disabilities. The proposed regulatory changes detail specific actions contractors must take in the areas of recruitment, training, record keeping and policy dissemination — similar to those that have long been required to promote workplace equality for women and minorities. In addition, the rule would clarify OFCCP's expectations for contractors by providing specific guidance on how to comply with the law.

      "This proposed rule represents one of the most significant advances in protecting the civil rights of workers with disabilities since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "President Obama has demonstrated a commitment to people with disabilities. This proposed rule would help federal contractors better fulfill their legal responsibility to hire qualified workers with disabilities."

      Although Section 503 regulations have been in place for decades, the current unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 13 percent, 1 1/2 times the rate of those without disabilities. Even more discouraging, data published last week by the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics show stark disparities facing working-age individuals with disabilities, with 79.2 percent outside the labor force altogether, compared to 30.5 percent of those without disabilities.

      "For nearly 40 years, the rules have said that contractors simply need to make a 'good faith' effort to recruit and hire people with disabilities. Clearly, that's not working," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Our proposal would define specific goals, require real accountability and provide the clearest possible guidance for employers seeking to comply with the law. What gets measured gets done. And we're in the business of getting things done."

      Establishing a 7 percent hiring goal for the employment of individuals with disabilities would be a tool for contractors to measure the effectiveness of their affirmative action efforts and thereby inform their decision-making. The proposed rule also would enhance data collection and record-keeping requirements — including for documentation and processing of requests for reasonable accommodation — in order to improve accountability. Additionally, it would ensure annual self-reviews of employers' recruitment and outreach efforts, and add a new requirement for contractors to list job openings to increase their pools of qualified applicants.

      To read the notice of proposed rulemaking or submit a comment, visit the federal e-rulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments also can be submitted by mail to Debra Carr, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-3325, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20210. All comments must be received by Feb. 7, 2012, and should include identification number (RIN) 1250-AA02.

      In addition to Section 503, OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they take affirmative action and not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit its website at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.
      "We must overcome difficulties rather than being overcome by difficulties."

      Comment


        #4
        A goal will become a requirement. Self reporting is interesting, but would be difficult to administer. Many people will ignore any survey and others might be tempted to lie. Who provides the definition of a disability? I'm not positive, but I think it would be illegal to ask an applicant about adaptations. I like the rule's intention, but this will be awkward to implement.
        Tom

        "Blessed are the pessimists, for they hath made backups." Exasperated 20:12

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by TomRL View Post
          A goal will become a requirement. Self reporting is interesting, but would be difficult to administer. Many people will ignore any survey and others might be tempted to lie. Who provides the definition of a disability? I'm not positive, but I think it would be illegal to ask an applicant about adaptations. I like the rule's intention, but this will be awkward to implement.
          The history of other anti-discrimination efforts would tend to disagree with you that a numeric goal will become a requirement. I'm not sure that it is illegal under the ADA to ask if a person has a disability. It certainly isn't illegal to ask if they are requesting any adaptations or electing to self report a disability. No, the administrative challenge of tracking a disability presents no special problems. It's just another piece of data to track, like age, sex, race (all of which are subject to charges of discrimination). The ADA provides a definition of disability. Doctors provide evidence of disability, just as they do for existing employees who raise disability issues. Many aspects of employment present as "awkward." But that isn't a legitimate excuse to avoid implementing anti-discriminatory hiring policies.

          There is no "mandatory hiring" law.
          Foolish

          "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

          "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

          "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

          Comment


            #6
            If recruitment efforts are designed to specifically target disabled workers, that's one source of data collection.

            Comment


              #7
              I guess I'm skeptical because of my compliance experience over the forty year I have been self employed. I'd be much more favorably impressed if I believed this hiring proposal would accomplish anything. I suspect it will just create another reporting hassle. Hope I'm wrong.
              Tom

              "Blessed are the pessimists, for they hath made backups." Exasperated 20:12

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by TomRL View Post
                I guess I'm skeptical because of my compliance experience over the forty year I have been self employed. I'd be much more favorably impressed if I believed this hiring proposal would accomplish anything. I suspect it will just create another reporting hassle. Hope I'm wrong.
                Ask yourself if the current level of employment gains of other minorities that have had to fight for their civil rights in the workplace would have been achieved without the help of law.

                Whether you are self employed or work for another entity, if you are disabled, a person of color, a woman, hold religious beliefs (or don't), or any other group that formerly had no legal protection from discriminatory practices, you have been aided by federal civil rights legislation and enforcement.
                Foolish

                "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

                "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

                "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by TomRL View Post
                  I guess I'm skeptical because of my compliance experience over the forty year I have been self employed. I'd be much more favorably impressed if I believed this hiring proposal would accomplish anything. I suspect it will just create another reporting hassle. Hope I'm wrong.
                  I have to agree with you! Hire someone because they are qualified and willing to do the job. Not because they meet a quota. I felt like in some ways I met a quota for a company I worked for. I had constant pressure on myself to outdo every single task because I didn't want to be precieved that way. I didn't like the pressure of feeling like I had to hire people to meet a quota either. DISLIKE!

                  I've met quite a few disabled minded/personality people who would have met the quota far better than I would being a complete para but you can't ask those questions during an interview. How do you know who is disabled and who isn't? Do they have to fit the adaptive equipment category for this reporting? It has a lot more planning before I can see any success with this proposal.
                  DFW TEXAS- T-10 since March 20th, 1994

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by offroaderswife View Post
                    I have to agree with you! Hire someone because they are qualified and willing to do the job. Not because they meet a quota. I felt like in some ways I met a quota for a company I worked for. I had constant pressure on myself to outdo every single task because I didn't want to be precieved that way. I didn't like the pressure of feeling like I had to hire people to meet a quota either. DISLIKE!

                    I've met quite a few disabled minded/personality people who would have met the quota far better than I would being a complete para but you can't ask those questions during an interview. How do you know who is disabled and who isn't? Do they have to fit the adaptive equipment category for this reporting? It has a lot more planning before I can see any success with this proposal.
                    Where does it say that potential hires need not be qualified nor be willing to do the job? Any employer with such irresponsible and thoughtless hiring practices is not likely to care about his company and probably won't be around long.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      How many highly qualified,capable, hardworking, ambitious people with a disability have been passed over because employers just didn't want to deal with the possibility that hiring those people MIGHT have awkward consequences?

                      Anti-discrimination laws force employers to think before passing over qualified people due to ignorance or false preconceived ideas about the abilities of people with handicaps. Some employers just don't like having people around who look different.
                      Last edited by Foolish Old; 29 Feb 2012, 3:25 PM.
                      Foolish

                      "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

                      "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

                      "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Probably around 8 out of 10.
                        Originally posted by Foolish Old View Post
                        How many highly qualified,capable, hardworking, ambitious people with a disability have been passed over because employers just didn't want to deal with the possibility that hiring those people MIGHT have awkward consequences?
                        Please donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org.
                        Copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

                        Thanks!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Back in the 1970s after the Rehab Act of 1973 was passed, I became a hot commodity. The Act was a precursor to ADA that applied to the Federal government and recipients of federal support. It included non-discrimination and affirmitive action employment provisions. I was well known in the health care field. I began getting letters and phone calls from places I had been a consultant for, had visited, etc. I went for 3 interviews and had been offered high paying positions before I realized what was going on. These positions had high rank titles and salaries but the responsibilities were very limited. What they were looking for was a token disabled employee they could show off to the feds. It had nothing to do with the fact that I had helped them develop and launch their facility or program. To a capable guy, this was very demeaning. I stayed at my real job where I had to work like hell to meet the responsibilities that seemed to grow by the day. My abilities were recognized and I was treated accordingly. I would hate to bring back those days of hiring people in order to have names to put on a government report. No one benefits from being a token hire.
                          You will find a guide to preserving shoulder function @
                          http://www.rstce.pitt.edu/RSTCE_Reso...imb_Injury.pdf

                          See my personal webpage @
                          http://cccforum55.freehostia.com/

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by SCIfor55yrs. View Post
                            Back in the 1970s after the Rehab Act of 1973 was passed, I became a hot commodity. The Act was a precursor to ADA that applied to the Federal government and recipients of federal support. It included non-discrimination and affirmitive action employment provisions. I was well known in the health care field. I began getting letters and phone calls from places I had been a consultant for, had visited, etc. I went for 3 interviews and had been offered high paying positions before I realized what was going on. These positions had high rank titles and salaries but the responsibilities were very limited. What they were looking for was a token disabled employee they could show off to the feds. It had nothing to do with the fact that I had helped them develop and launch their facility or program. To a capable guy, this was very demeaning. I stayed at my real job where I had to work like hell to meet the responsibilities that seemed to grow by the day. My abilities were recognized and I was treated accordingly. I would hate to bring back those days of hiring people in order to have names to put on a government report. No one benefits from being a token hire.
                            It's of even less benefit when capable people are passed over for no good reason. Anti-discrimination civil rights legislation has opened many doors for qualified, capable people of color, women and those with disabilities. I'd hate to go back to a time when discrimination kept them unemployed or barred them from advancement. The same lazy attitudes that caused some employers to hire "tokens" rather than recruit qualified people for real jobs is the reason that those employers formerly turned their backs on capable people for no good reason. Those early "tokens" acted as a conduit to recruit capable people who proved their worth despite their perceived differences from the majority work pool. Only the most prejudiced will continue to insist that all the people working today who would formerly have been passed over are hired as "tokens."

                            I would hope that everyone who has a disability, or loves someone with a disability, would do everything in their power to increase the accessibility of every aspect of society. The right to be free from workplace discrimination is a fundemental civil right. No one is forced to hire a person with a disability. Employers do have a legal obligation to treat them fairly. The weakness of this legislation is too LITTLE enforcement, not too much enforcement.
                            Last edited by Foolish Old; 29 Feb 2012, 4:32 PM.
                            Foolish

                            "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

                            "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

                            "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by chick View Post
                              Where does it say that potential hires need not be qualified nor be willing to do the job? Any employer with such irresponsible and thoughtless hiring practices is not likely to care about his company and probably won't be around long.
                              I was shocked, while working for the 4th largest bank in the world, to be called in quarterly as a leadership team and handed out our individual hiring statistics. It read like a chart with how many of each "diverse" candidate that you have interviewed verses how many you hired. To spare you the long story, we were micro managed in our hiring efforts to "improve" our hiring if diverse candidates. No one would come right out and say "your not hiring enough asian males" or what not but we had to start getting approval for our hires and our list of "need to improve candidates" was considered in our approval for the hire. They called in an interview "debrief". I filled in for my boss while she was on maternity leave. During the upper management meeting that attended in regard to hiring a new supervisor it was strongly mentioned 3 times in one hour that we only have one African American supervisor. 4 out of 5 managers ran right out and started prepping African American candidates for an interview. It was an effort to meet a quota rather than an effort to hire the right person for the job regardless of race. Our recruiter who was in charge of the "list" filed a formal complaint and left the company because if the way it was handled. People were put in to sales positions because we didn't have enough female sales consultants, enough African American leaders, enough male customer service reps. We began shuffling people based on quotas rather than who was the best competitive advantage for the job. It was disappointing and created a retention issue that we generated another report for. People started disliking their jobs because it wasn't the right fit or they were not qualified. If we become a quota or target number then we are going to eventually just create another problem for employers. I want to be hired because I am qualified and stood out as a strong candidate, not because I was just an ok candidate but I fit in to a 7% hiring quota. I would rather see companies provide diversiting training that helps them see that we are not a race or a disability, but hard working and capable people.
                              DFW TEXAS- T-10 since March 20th, 1994

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X