Category: Higher Ed News

NLRB Higher Education Union Election Data for 2023 – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | March 5, 2024

During calendar year 2023, union organizing continued to rise at institutions of higher education. Data from the National Labor Relations Board on union organizing show that 31.2% of all private-sector workers who successfully unionized in 2023 were employed by institutions of higher education. Public institutions also saw considerable union activity, though this is not reflected in NLRB data.*

To provide an update regarding collective bargaining at private colleges and universities across the country, CUPA-HR’s government relations team has compiled the following NLRB data** from 2023 and early 2024 to summarize organizing activity.

Organizing Efforts at Private Institutions in 2023

There were 132,303 workers in bargaining units that held elections in 2023. Of this total, 32,477 workers were from institutions of higher education.

There were 92,574 workers in total who joined certified bargaining units in the U.S. in 2023. Of this total, 28,859 workers were from institutions of higher education.

Private Institution Union Drive Data in 2023

There were 55 union elections held at private institutions of higher education last year.

Of the 55 held, 48 union elections resulted in worker unionization. Again, this totaled 28,859 workers from private institutions of higher education.***

20 elections included non-faculty, non-student workers with various positions.

14 elections included graduate students with various positions (including two RA elections).

13 elections included undergraduate students with various positions (including five RA elections).

Two elections included faculty.

Two elections included non-tenured faculty specifically.

Two elections included adjunct faculty.

Two elections included postdoctoral workers.

Three elections did not result in unionization. Four elections have been held at institutions, but they have not yet been closed. It is unclear why they are pending.

Private Institution Election Data since January 1, 2024

So far this year, there have been eight union elections at institutions of higher education. Seven of the elections resulted in worker unionization, and one is still open for unknown reasons.

In the seven decided elections, 2,477 workers are included in the bargaining units.

In the one open case, 290 workers could be unionized.

Since January 1, 2024, there are seven pending petitions for unionization at institutions of higher education. In the seven pending petitions, 3,674 workers could be unionized depending on the result of the elections.

CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this NLRB data and keep members apprised of future higher education union organizing trends.

*The NLRB is a federal agency and only has jurisdiction over private employers, which includes private higher education institutions. Public institutions handle collective bargaining activity with their state and local labor relations agencies. CUPA-HR regularly tracks activity from the NLRB and is providing an overview of union activity at private institutions, but members at public institutions are encouraged to share union activity with the CUPA-HR government relations team as it occurs.

**To compile the data, CUPA-HR searched for “Election Results” and “R Case Reports” that included the search terms “university,” “college,” and “school” during the calendar year 2023 and from January 1, 2024 to March 4, 2024.

***The grouped data below do not add up to 48 total elections because some units included multiple groups (i.e. undergraduate and graduate students, tenured and non-tenured faculty, etc.).

Share This Article:
Source link
March 5, 2024
Department of Labor Sends Overtime Rule to OIRA for Review – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | March 4, 2024

On March 1, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) sent the highly anticipated final rule to update Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. This is a required step in the regulatory process and acts as one of the last steps prior to releasing the text of the regulation to the public.

OIRA, as part of the president’s Office of Management and Budget, is required to review all proposed and final rules, as well as all regulatory actions, before implementation. While OIRA has 90 days to conduct its review, in most cases, the review takes 30 to 60 days. This means the final rule could be released as early as the end of March or in April, which would meet WHD’s April 2024 target date for release as indicated in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

WHD issued the proposed rule to increase the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA overtime regulations in September 2023. In the proposed rule, WHD sought to increase the salary threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase.* The proposed rule also sought to implement automatic updates to the salary threshold that would occur every three years and would tie the updated salary threshold to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage census region. Notably, the proposed rule did not include any changes to the duties requirements of the FLSA overtime regulations.

Comments in response to the proposed rule were due in November 2023. WHD received over 33,000 comments in response to the proposed rule. CUPA-HR, joined by 49 other higher education associations, submitted comments, which made the following recommendations:
1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
2. DOL should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.
The text of the final rule is not public until the rule is published in the Federal Register, so details of the finalized salary threshold and the timeframe for compliance are unknown at this time. While the rule is at OIRA, however, interested stakeholders can request a meeting with the administrator to discuss the proposed changes. CUPA-HR will request a meeting with OIRA to discuss our concerns with the proposed rule.

CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of all updates as it relates to the FLSA overtime final rule.

* The discrepancy between our figure of $60,209 and the DOL’s preamble figure of $55,068 arises from DOL’s own projections based on anticipated wage growth. The DOL’s proposed rule is rooted in 2022 data (yielding the $55,068 figure), but a footnote in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking confirms that the salary threshold will definitely change by the time the final rule is issued to reflect the most recent data. Our comments, aiming to respond to the most probable salary threshold at the time a final rule is released, reference the DOL’s projected figure for Q1 2024, which is $60,209. We do not believe DOL will be able to issue a final rule before Q1 2024, so we are incorporating this projected figure into our response to the NPRM. In essence, our goal is to provide members with a clearer picture of the likely salary figure when the final rule comes into play.

Share This Article:
Source link
March 4, 2024
Federal Judge Blocks NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Policy for Recruits Nationwide – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | February 27, 2024

On February 23, a federal judge with the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction barring the NCAA from enforcing its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness compensation for recruits. The injunction applies nationwide.

The policy in question prohibited student-athletes from negotiating and signing NIL contracts prior to enrolling at a college or university. This meant NIL compensation could not be used to “induce” a recruit to a specific school. This policy stood in contrast to the NCAA’s policy for student-athletes already enrolled at a college or university, who, as of 2021, have been allowed to seek NIL compensation.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker explained, “The NCAA’s prohibition likely violates federal antitrust law and harms student-athletes.” He clarified, “Without the give and take of a free market, student-athletes simply have no knowledge of their true NIL value. It is this suppression of negotiating leverage and the consequential lack of knowledge that harms student-athletes.” He further argued that the NCAA “fails to show how the timing of when a student-athlete enters such an agreement would destroy the goal of preserving amateurism,” thereby not establishing rationale for treating recruits differently than enrolled student-athletes.

The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia after the NCAA investigated the University of Tennessee for potential violations of the policy. The NCAA will likely appeal the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan, but in the meantime, reports indicate the organization is already considering potential policy changes.

This case is only one of the lawsuits targeting the NCAA and its policies towards student-athletes. Several lawsuits are currently pending before various federal courts, alleging the NCAA in its current form violates federal antitrust law. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that the Dartmouth men’s basketball team are employees of the university, allowing them to organize and schedule a union representation election for early March. The NLRB has also issued a complaint against the University of Southern California, the PAC-12 Conference and the NCAA, alleging the three have misclassified USC’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees and that the three organizations are joint employers of the athletes.

CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for and keep members apprised of any updates on these cases.

Share This Article:

Source link

February 27, 2024
Federal Agencies Issue Proposed Rule on Pay Equity and Transparency for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | February 14, 2024

On January 30, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and NASA issued a proposed rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to create a salary history ban and require pay transparency during the hiring process for federal contractors and subcontractors. The proposed rule aligns with the Biden administration’s 2022 Executive Order, “Advancing Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness in Federal Contracting by Promoting Pay Equity and Transparency.”

According to the proposed rule, the FAR would be amended to implement a government-wide policy that would:

prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”); and

require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose on job announcements the compensation to be offered (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

The proposed rule comes as many states and localities have recently implemented salary history bans and pay transparency laws. As the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking notes, 21 states, 22 localities, and Washington, D.C., have put bans into place that prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary, and 10 states have pay transparency laws in place, with several other states working toward implementing such laws.

The agencies have provided a 70-day comment period for the proposed rule, closing on April 1. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments on their support for or opposition to the provisions of the proposed rule. CUPA-HR will monitor for additional updates on this proposed rule and other policy initiatives at the federal level as they relate to pay transparency and salary history bans.

Share This Article:
Source link
February 14, 2024
HR and the Courts — February 2024 – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | February 14, 2024

Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

Basketball Players Are Employees of Dartmouth, NLRB Concludes—Union Vote Scheduled for March 5

Student-athletes on the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team will vote March 5 on whether to join a union in an election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board. The applicable NLRB regional director issued a decision on February 5, holding that the basketball players are employees of Dartmouth, as the institution provides compensation to the athletes and exerts control over them (NLRB Reg’l Dir., No. 01-RC-325633, 2/5/24, 2/9/24).

The basketball players filed a petition to be represented by the Service Employees International Union, Local 560, in September. Dartmouth has indicated that it will appeal the regional director’s decision to the full NLRB after the March 5 election.

The regional director decided that the basketball players meet the definition of employees under the National Labor Relations Act because “Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men’s basketball team.” The regional director further held that the athletes receive compensation in the form of equipment totaling nearly $3,000 an athlete per season, tickets to events, and travel and lodging from the institution.

This is the first time that the NLRB has ruled that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA. In 2014, the NLRB declined to take jurisdiction over Northwestern University football players in denying an election in that case. The regional director in the Dartmouth case concluded that nothing in the Northwestern case precluded a later decision that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA.

This issue is also being litigated by the NLRB on the West Coast in unfair labor practice proceedings alleging that student-athlete basketball and football players have been improperly classified as students and not employees of the University of Southern California, the NCAA and the PAC-12 Conference.

SpaceX Challenges Constitutionality of NLRA

SpaceX filed a formal complaint in federal district court in response to a complaint the NLRB issued. The NLRB’s complaint concerned SpaceX firing eight employees over a letter they filed within the company’s internal distribution network. The letter called into question SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s public comments and called for the organization to distance itself from Musk. The employees were fired, and the NLRB issued a complaint alleging that they were fired in violation of the NLRA as a result of engaging in concerted activities protected by the NLRA.

SpaceX alleges that the NLRA is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers and deprives the employer the right to a jury trial (Space Exploration Technologies v. NLRB et al (Case No. 1:24:00001 S.D. Tx. 1/4/24)). The lawsuit specifically alleges that the NLRB’s structure of requiring complaints to be heard and initially adjudicated by administrative law judges, with appeal rights to the NLRB and eventually to the U.S. Court of Appeals, deprives employers their right to a jury trial. SpaceX alleges that the NLRB’s administrative structure violates its Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on criminal matters.

NLRB Seeks to Bring More Higher Ed Religious Institutions Under Its Jurisdiction

In a recent hearing over a case primarily involving whether the NLRB should have jurisdiction over student-athletes, the NLRB attorneys also asked the administrative law judge (ALJ) to reverse the Trump-era, 2020 decision in the Bethany College case, which broadly exempted religiously affiliated, non-profit, higher ed institutions that hold themselves out publicly as religious institutions.

The NLRB attorneys argued that the Bethany case was wrongfully decided and that the ALJ should return to the NLRB’s prior rule laid down in the Pacific Lutheran case. Under the Pacific Lutheran decision, religious higher ed institutions are exempt from NLRB jurisdiction only if the faculty members perform religious functions in addition to lay teaching responsibilities.

Appeals Court Revives Professor’s Claim That Termination Violated His Contract Without Due Process

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a tenured biology professor’s contract violation claim stemming from his termination. The appeals court ruled that the trial court erred in concluding that the Jackson State University professor’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The professor was terminated for alleged unauthorized research, which stemmed from his use of unauthorized undergraduate students to assist in his research involving the use of human urine.

The professor was suspended in 2015. The department chair concluded in mid-2015 that he would recommend the professor’s termination based on the reports he heard. In 2018, the faculty personnel committee sided with the professor, but the university president rejected the committee’s reinstatement recommendation in 2018. In March 2019, the board of the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) terminated the professor per the university president’s decision. The professor sued in 2022, and the trial court dismissed on three-year statute-of-limitations grounds. The appeals court reversed, holding that the IHL decision, which was the final termination decision, was when the statute of limitations would start running and therefore the lawsuit was filed within the three-year statute of limitations and can go forward.

EEOC on Alert for Workplace Discrimination Resulting From Israel-Hamas War

At her first press event as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s new general counsel, Karla Gilbride indicated that the EEOC has received reports from workers and advocacy organizations representing the Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities of an increase in workplace discrimination against protected groups resulting from the Israel-Hamas war. The EEOC has signaled interest in pursuing domestic workplace discrimination that may result from “local, national or global events.” The general counsel indicated that it is a priority in the agency’s strategic enforcement plan to be responsive in this area.

Gilbride concluded, “We’re reviewing that data to get a better handle on whether we at EEOC are recognizing an uptick in discrimination on the basis of religion or national origin affecting Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities or people who might be perceived as belonging to those communities even if they did not actually belong to those communities.” The general counsel indicated that global events in the past, such as 9/11, have led to an increase in domestic workplace discrimination.

Employee at University of Michigan at Dearborn Has First Amendment, Free Speech Right to Speak to Press

The 6^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) rejected the University of Michigan at Dearborn’s defense of sovereign immunity and allowed a university employee’s claim of First Amendment speech retaliation to proceed (Ashford v. Univ of Michigan (6th Cir., No. 22-02057, 1/9/24)). The appeals court held that the employee’s speaking to the press about the university’s “mishandling” of a student’s sex harassment complaint against a professor was a matter of public concern. Further, this matter was not part of the employee’s job responsibilities or duties. The court held that the employee was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern and is therefore allowing the employee’s request that his 10-day suspension be expunged to move forward.

The employee is also requesting an injunction against the university barring future retaliation for speech he might engage in. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the local campus police mishandled a student’s sex harassment complaint. The plaintiff alleged that he raised his concerns internally with his supervisor and with campus security before speaking with the press. The employee also alleges that the newspaper came to him for comment and initiated the process, which led to his statement. The court reiterated that the plaintiff was not speaking to further his official duties but was speaking as a private citizen.

Yale Professor Sues, Claiming Sex Discrimination Against Males

A federal trial court recently ruled that a Yale University medical school professor’s claim of gender discrimination can proceed to trial. The claims of discrimination result from the university’s additional decision to remove the professor’s endowed chair designation, sometime subsequent to the university’s initial punishment for his sex harassment transgressions (Simons v. Yale University (2024 BL 15344, D. Conn., No. 3:19-cv-01547, 1/17/24)).

The professor alleged that only men are subject to multiple punishments for the same infraction. The court ruled that losing an honorific title could be an adverse job action even if pay was not reduced in that action. The court concluded that the plaintiff had previously been punished in multiple ways concerning the incident, including losing his positions as chief of the section of cardiovascular medicine and director of the university’s cardiovascular research center.

Share This Article:

Source link

February 14, 2024
Department of Education Moves Forward With Title IX Final Rule – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | February 5, 2024

On February 2, 2024, the Department of Education (ED) sent its highly anticipated Title IX final rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA review is the final step before the Title IX rule is published. While ED’s final rule is being reviewed, the public is not provided with any specific details on changes to the proposed rule. However, interested stakeholders can request a meeting with the administrator while a rule is under review.

The Department of Education introduced a Title IX proposed rule in June 2022, under which the department proposed to replace the Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX rule and establish expanded protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the proposed rule, in which we brought attention to the possible impact the proposed regulations could have on how higher education institutions address employment discrimination.

The Department of Education has been reviewing the 240,000 submitted comments in response to the Title IX proposed rule since the comment period closed in September 2022. The final rule was initially included in the Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda with a target release date in May 2023, but the department had to further delay that timeline to ensure all comments submitted in response to the proposed rule were reviewed and addressed in the final rule. Most recently, ED indicated a March 2024 release of the final rule in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

OIRA reviews typically last between 30-60 days, though the agency has up to 90 days to review the rule before it is released to the public. As such, the final rule could be released as soon as early March, possibly meeting the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda’s target date.

Once the final rule is published, CUPA-HR will hold a webinar presented by Title IX experts. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the Title IX final rule, including when the review is completed and the rule is published.

Share This Article:

Source link

February 5, 2024
DHS Announces First Phase of Final H-1B Modernization Rule – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | February 1, 2024

On January 30, 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a final rule to implement a new beneficiary-centric selection process for H-1B registrations. This rule, which also introduces start date flexibility for certain H-1B cap-subject petitions and additional integrity measures, is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on February 2, 2024, and will become effective 30 days later.

The rule does not finalize all the provisions in the H-1B Modernization Proposal from last October. Notably absent are changes to the definitions of H-1B specialty occupation, policies of deference to prior adjudications, and modifications to cap-gap protection, among others. DHS has indicated plans to publish a separate final rule to address these remaining aspects from October’s proposed rule.

Summary of Key Changes

Beneficiary-Centric Selection Process. The final rule introduces a change in the H-1B registration selection process. Instead of a registration-based lottery system, DHS will now implement a beneficiary-centric approach. This means that each foreign worker (beneficiary) will be entered into the selection process once, irrespective of the number of registrations submitted on their behalf. This change is designed to offer a fairer, more equitable system and reduce the potential for manipulation.

Start Date Flexibility. The final rule provides more flexibility for the employment start dates in H-1B cap-subject petitions. Employers will now be allowed to file petitions with start dates that are after October 1 of the relevant fiscal year. This aligns with current DHS policy and removes previous restrictions, offering more convenience for employers and beneficiaries.

Enhanced Integrity Measures. Under the final rule, DHS codifies its ability to deny or revoke H-1B petitions in cases where the underlying registration contains a false attestation or is otherwise invalid. Additionally, the rule stipulates that DHS may deny or revoke the approval of an H-1B petition if issues arise with the H-1B cap registration fee, such as if the fee is declined, not reconciled, disputed, or deemed invalid after submission.

With the final rule, DHS not only introduces key adjustments to the H-1B visa process but also sets the stage for efficiency enhancements. Starting February 28, 2024, USCIS will launch an online filing option for Forms I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service.

In addition, USCIS will launch new organizational accounts in its online platform on February 28. These accounts are designed to enable collaboration within organizations and their legal representatives on H-1B registrations, petitions, and associated premium processing requests. While some details about this new account system and the e-filing function have been provided, USCIS is expected to release more comprehensive information in the coming weeks.

Share This Article:
Source link
February 1, 2024
USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | February 1, 2024

Important Update: We wish to clarify an important aspect regarding the USCIS final fee rule’s exemptions/reduced fees for nonprofit organizations. The rule specifies that the exemption/reduced fees apply to entities classified under the 501(c)(3) category, as per the Internal Revenue Code. This classification may not encompass many public universities and colleges, which, while tax-exempt, are generally not designated as 501(c)(3) organizations. We are aware of the confusion this may cause within the higher education community and are working with other higher education associations to seek clarification from USCIS.

On January 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a final rule to adjust certain immigration and naturalization benefit request fees, resulting in significantly higher fees for employment-based petitioners, with notable reductions and exemptions for certain higher education employers. USCIS claims that the increased fees, which will apply to any benefit request postmarked on or after April 1, 2024, will “allow USCIS to recover a greater share of its operating costs and support more timely processing of new applications.”

Background

Unlike other government agencies that receive the majority of their funding through congressional appropriations, USCIS receives approximately 96 percent of its funding from filing fees. The agency, after its last fee adjustment in 2016, conducted a fee review that revealed these fees were inadequate to meet the agency’s operating costs. This assessment led USCIS to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in January 2023, which included substantial increases to various employment-based filing fees, including up to 200 percent increases for some petitions. In response to the proposal, CUPA-HR joined comments which addressed higher ed-specific concerns with the proposal including the impact the increased fees would have had on international scholars and institutions’ ability to hire nonimmigrant workers, including H-1B workers.

Final Rule Details

While the final rule is nearly 330 pages long and has significant implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, this blog post focuses on the notable changes from the proposed rule to the final rule that have the most significant implications for higher ed employers.

The proposed rule introduced a new fee to fund the Asylum Program with employer petition fees. The fee is $600 to be paid by any employer who files either a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. In the latest rule, USCIS finalized this fee but exempted the Asylum Program Fee for nonprofit petitioners that meet the Internal Revenue Code’s specific 501(c)(3) classification, resulting in a $0 fee for those entities. While the comments CUPA-HR signed onto requested that higher ed be exempt from the fee, based on precedents like the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1988, which exempted certain fees for colleges and universities, there is confusion regarding this exemption’s applicability to some public universities and colleges, as many do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification.

In addition to the new Asylum Program Fee, USCIS is implementing the following changes to employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees:
- Fee changes for visa classifications on Form I-129 and Form I-140: USCIS is imposing different fees for each visa classification sought on the Form I-129 nonimmigrant worker petition, replacing the uniform $460 Form I-129 filing fee across all classifications.
- Fees for I-129 Petitions for H-1B workers: USCIS had proposed a 70 percent increase in the filing fee, from $460 to $780. In the final rule DHS did not increase the filing fee for nonprofits so it is still $460 (0 percent increase).
- Fees for I-129 Petitions for L-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 201 percent increase from $460 to $1,385. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $695 (51 percent increase).
- Fees for I-129 Petitions for O-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 129 percent increase, from $460 to $1,055. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $530 (15 percent increase).
- A full fee schedule can be found in Table 1 of the preamble to the final rule.
In addition to the aforementioned changes, USCIS finalized its proposal to revise the premium processing timeframe interpretation from calendar days to business days. Currently, premium processing allows petitioners to receive an adjudicative action on their case within 15 calendar days. Changing the interpretation to business days will add nearly a week to the existing adjudication time.

Update on Clarification Efforts by Higher Education

In response to the USCIS final fee rule’s reliance on the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a nonprofit organization, specifically 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), higher education associations are actively seeking clarification from USCIS. These efforts aim to understand how the fee adjustments will impact public universities and colleges that do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification. The goal is to ensure that the unique status of higher education institutions is recognized and adequately addressed in the implementation of the fee rule.

Share This Article:
Source link
February 1, 2024
CUPA-HR Submits Letter in Response to Paid Leave RFI – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | January 31, 2024

On January 31, CUPA-HR submitted a letter in response to the Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Paid Leave Working Group’s Request for Information on federal paid leave policy. The letter responds to some of the 10 questions posed by the Working Group to inform them of the role the federal government can play in creating a national paid leave policy.

CUPA-HR’s letter answers questions on the role of the federal government in incentivizing paid leave, the recommended framework for a federal policy, how to avoid unintended distortions resulting from a paid leave framework, and existing research on the impact of paid leave on job satisfaction and recruitment and retention efforts. In our response, CUPA-HR takes the position that the role of the federal government is to ensure that any federal law or program requires harmonization across federal, state, and local leave laws. The letter recommends a framework in which the federal government establishes national criteria for certain aspects of paid leave policies, including tracking and recordkeeping requirements, while granting states and localities leeway to go beyond the federal requirements for other aspects, such as the types of leave that qualify for wage replacement, the duration of such leave, and the wage replacement level.

The Paid Leave Working Group issued the RFI in December 2023 and sought diverse stakeholder input on the issue of a federal paid leave policy. Comments were due on January 31, 2023. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for any updates on paid leave as Congress continues to look for a bipartisan solution.

Share This Article:

Source link

January 31, 2024
Ten Higher Ed HR Stories That Defined 2023 – CUPA-HR
by Julie Burrell | January 17, 2024

Last year brought major changes to the higher education landscape. Turnover reached a peak, prompting more attention than ever to retention and recruitment, while looming policy changes in overtime pay and Title IX regulations further complicated long-term planning. And, though it may feel like unprecedented change is the new normal, timeless HR topics like onboarding and compensation strategy also captured readers’ attention in 2023.

We’ve rounded up the CUPA-HR articles, resources and research that defined 2023 and will continue to shape your 2024. These are the most-viewed stories on our website as well as some resources you may have missed.

Top Stories

CUPA-HR members were understandably concerned about the impact of two issues — the retention crisis and the potential shake-up to overtime pay rules — on their campuses.
1. The Higher Ed Employee Retention Crisis — And What to Do About It
Key Takeaway: Turnover in higher ed reached a peak last year — the highest level since we started tracking it in 2017 — so it’s no surprise that talent management and recruitment was top of mind. This article marshals a wealth of insights from our members and the CUPA-HR research team to aid HR pros, including a blueprint for employee recognition, as well as strategies for rethinking compensation and flexible work.
1. The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey
Key Takeaway: The data provided here help explain the record-high turnover. The report also digs into the factors that most impact retention, offering a model for understanding higher ed retention. Analyzing data from 4,782 higher ed employees — administrators, professionals and non-exempt staff, with faculty excluded — from 529 institutions, the survey found that more than half (56%) of employees are at least somewhat likely to search for a new job in the coming year. (Looking for an overview of report findings? Check out our press release.)
1. Overtime and Title IX Final Rules Targeted for Early 2024 Release in Fall Regulatory Agenda
Key Takeaway: Last year, the Department of Labor announced that they would target April 2024 for the release of a final rule to update the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay regulations. The rule seeks to substantially increase the minimum salary threshold required for white-collar professionals to maintain exempt status. To stay abreast of any updates, don’t forget to register for our Washington Update webinars and visit our FLSA overtime resources page.

Relationships and Well-Being

The demands on HR pros are at an all-time high. Last year, our members sought ways to care for themselves, their team and their campuses. Two of the most popular resources of 2023 addressed mental health and resolving interpersonal conflict.
1. Managing Stress and Self-Care: “No” Is a Complete Sentence
Key Takeaway: In this highly rated recorded webinar, Jennifer Parker, professional development and training manager of the Colorado Community College system, gives practical tools for minimizing stress and leads participants in creating a self-care plan.
1. Ushering in the New Wave of Conflict Resolution: Tulane University’s Restorative Approach
Key Takeaway: Learn how Tulane University’s Office of Human Resources and Institutional Equity launched a conflict resolution program, all while successfully managing the pivot to virtual offerings during the pandemic. One of the few university programs in the country to provide a restorative approach, Tulane’s program is a roadmap for fostering and maintaining campus relationships.

Retention and Recruitment

Our members offered real-world case studies of talent management and attraction in these feature articles in Higher Ed HR Magazine. They provide success stories and practical tips you can tailor to fit your needs.
1. Modernizing Workplace Culture and the Employee Experience — Strategies for HR
Key Takeaway: Workplace culture encompasses so much that it’s tricky to pin down. Jacob Lathrop, consultant to the vice president/CHRO at Michigan State University, defines workplace culture as the feeling employees are left with when they leave work. It’s how they describe their days to family or friends. Old ways of doing things may be harmful to employees’ well-being, while modernizing workplace culture might mean retaining and attracting talent. Lathrop’s tips include embracing flexibility and autonomy, evolving your paid-leave policies, and updating career exploration programs, among others.
1. A Tale of Two Onboarding Programs: North Carolina State University and
2. A Tale of Two Onboarding Programs: The University Of St. Francis
Key Takeaway: A perennially popular topic, onboarding can look very different depending on the institution. In the first article, North Carolina State University’s onboarding manager Amy Grubbs tells the story of their efforts to create consistent new-hire experiences, get supervisors involved in the onboarding process, and bring a full-service Onboarding Center to life through strategic campus partnerships. (Check out Amy’s webinar too, which provides even more information on the Onboarding Center and strategic partnerships.) With more limited resources, Carol Sheetz, formerly of the small, private University of St. Francis, shares her solo effort to build USF’s onboarding program from scratch. This article contains her top tips and resources for other HR pros in the same situation.
1. Investing in Employees During an Economic Downturn: How We Implemented Our Living Wage Strategy
Key Takeaway: A decade ago, the Maricopa County Community College District committed to a $30,000 livable wage for its full-time employees, but employees found it challenging to keep up with inflationary pressures and the COVID-related economic downturn. Maricopa responded by raising the livable wage by 15.5 percent, from $14.42 to $16.65. This article explains how HR managed to implement this raise, while preventing additional pay compression and reduced employee morale. (The second phase of MCCCD’s plan, focusing on progressive pay practices, internal pay equity and market alignment, is explored here.)
1. Recalibrating Employee Recognition in Higher Education
Key Takeaway: “Most of us continue churning out the same recognition programs — many decades old — often without questioning their value, validating their impact or reviewing for bias,” says author Sharri Margraves, the executive director of organization and professional development for Michigan State University’s human resources. She surveyed 65 higher education institutions to find out how they formally and informally recognize employees. This article not only presents these findings, but also suggests ways to redesign your own recognition program, including a self-audit tool to assess your strengths and weaknesses.

Share This Article:
Source link
January 17, 2024