Blog

  • Can Go Higher students save the environment? By Barbara Milne, Go Higher Study Skills Tutor – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    Can Go Higher students save the environment? By Barbara Milne, Go Higher Study Skills Tutor – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    Sustainability and the challenges of protecting our environment are key concerns for the Go Higher Diploma and for the University as a whole. A couple of weeks into semester two, our students were invited to work on a PowerPoint presentation and voice over, focusing on the topic of sustainability and / or the environment.

    The range of topics which they chose to focus on and research was hugely impressive. The task enabled them to not only develop their investigative and PowerPoint skills but also to highlight an issue which was important to them personally.

    Our Go Highers embraced this task, producing work of a high quality: innovative, dynamic, and engaging. By way of example, here are some titles: ‘Sustainability in Fashion’; ‘The important role frogs play in environment’, through to ‘Dogs’ ‘business’’ and its impact on our environment, to the fascinating subject of ‘Light Pollution’, collectively, a wide-ranging and diverse bank of work.

    I chatted with one of our Go Higher, who, reflecting on their presentation, highlighted positive aspects of their ‘PowerPoint experience’. They observed that ‘the presentation was a nice way to lead into the start of the new semester’. They noted, with appreciation, the freedom to select their theme within the topic remit, adding that ‘there were opportunities to settle on a subject that might not be widely known’, drawing attention to it, through the medium of PowerPoint.

    A further reflection highlighted the usefulness of having a sample presentation, plus rough working notes, as part of the task guidance. This advice served as an alarm bell, warning that not everything, however relevant and interesting, could be included within the five slide limit, so encouraging the development of discerning editing skills. The nature of this task was commented on as being instrumental in ‘taking the pressure off’, affording an opportunity to concentrate efforts on an item of work that would receive constructive comment, rather than a grade.

    A positive outcome, resulting from the presentation task, was pinpointed  during our conversation –  the interconnection between this assignment and the forthcoming Philosophy podcast  – feedback evidencing that the path towards making a podcast had been eased, because of the experience of providing a commentary to a PowerPoint presentation, speaking to an audience, a practice run for the podcast. This is a feature of Go Higher: there are linkages throughout the different modules with students supported to develop their skills and potential at a pace that is right for them.

    It’s terrific to see how much hard work has gone into producing engaging presentations that are both engaging and informative. Well done everyone!

    Image by Freepic

    Source link

  • District Court Invalidates NLRB’s Joint-Employer Rule – CUPA-HR

    District Court Invalidates NLRB’s Joint-Employer Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 13, 2024

    On March 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas invalidated the National Labor Relations Board’s joint-employer final rule, meaning the rule did not go into effect on March 11, as was anticipated. The NLRB will likely appeal the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The final rule expanded the joint-employer standard under the National Labor Relations Act, which is used to determine when two or more entities are jointly responsible for setting the terms and conditions of employment over a shared group of employees. Joint-employer status comes with significant responsibilities and liabilities under the law, including bargaining with any union representing the shared employees and being liable for any NLRA violations either employer commits against those employees.

    Traditionally, joint-employer status was only triggered if the potential joint employer exercised direct and immediate control over the shared workers’ terms and conditions of employment, including hiring, firing, disciplining, supervising, and directing the employees. The final rule, however, would have expanded joint-employer status to entities that have indirect or unexercised, reserved control over the terms and conditions of employment.

    The decision from the district court invalidates the ruling, halting implementation and reinstating the traditional joint-employer standard. As the judge in the case explained, the rule was too broad and violated the NLRA. Specifically, the judge stated it “would treat virtually every entity that contracts for labor as a joint employer because virtually every contract for third-party labor has terms that impact, at least indirectly … essential terms and conditions of employment.”

    Details of the appeal and subsequent decision from the the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be shared in the coming months. If the NLRB wins on appeal and the rule is eventually implemented, it will apply to private-sector higher education institutions. It will impact colleges’ and universities’ relationships with many of their contractors whose employees perform work on campus, including food service, security and landscaping services.

    CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of updates regarding the status of the NLRB’s joint-employer rule.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — March 2024 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — March 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 13, 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.

    Dartmouth College May Appeal NLRB’s Decision Allowing Basketball Players to Unionize

    The Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 to unionize, selecting the Service Employees International Union Local 560 to represent them in collective bargaining. While student-athletes at Northwestern University voted to unionize some 10 years ago, the National Labor Relations Board declined jurisdiction in that case. Here, the NLRB appears to be taking a different approach and has affirmed the regional director’s decision that the basketball players are employees of the college.

    Bloomberg reports that Dartmouth stated it has “deep respect” for its unionized workers but does not believe this path is “appropriate” for basketball players. Dartmouth has argued to the NLRB that its student-athletes are not employees and that its basketball players are participating in a voluntary extracurricular activity. The NLRB, with one dissenting vote, denied Dartmouth’s motion to stay its decision, ruling that the basketball players are employees of the institution. The legal path forward is complex, and we will report on developments as they occur.

    Separately, the NLRB is conducting a hearing on the West Coast involving an unfair labor practice complaint filed against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA regarding their refusal to bargain with a union representing football and basketball players at USC. The NLRB general counsel has publicly stated that she believes student-athletes are employees who should be able to unionize.

    Student-Athlete Employee Status Could Lead to Student Visa Problems

    The classification of college student-athletes as employees could lead to F-1 visa problems for international athletes enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. The F-1 visa restricts work to 20 hours per week when classes are in session and 40 hours per week when classes are not in session. The F-1 visa is used by roughly 20,000 international athletes enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities.

    Possible workarounds are either the P-1 visa, which is a nonimmigrant visa used by professional athletes, or an O-1 visa, which is used by individuals with extraordinary ability. Commentators conclude that these workarounds are not feasible on the scale necessary to accommodate the number of international student-athletes involved. A legislative solution will probably be necessary to address this problem should the employee status of college athletes be confirmed by the NLRB, or in other litigation under statutes such as the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    Union Membership and Strike Activity Rose Dramatically in 2023

    Bloomberg Law’s statistical analyses show that union membership and strike activity rose considerably in 2023 to levels not seen in years. Unions organized almost 100,000 new workers in NLRB-supervised elections in 2023, the largest single year total since 2000. This is the fourth-largest total one-year organizing gain since 1990, according to Bloomberg Law statistics. This is also the first time since 1990 that unions have managed to increase their annual headcount for three years in a row.

    The news is similar on the strike activity front. Over 500,000 workers participated in work stoppages in 2023. This is the second-highest number since Bloomberg Law began collecting this data in 1990. The only year that saw more strike activity since 1990 was 2018, the year of multiple city- and state-wide teacher strikes.

    SpaceX’s Challenge to NLRB’s Administrative Procedures Is Transferred From Texas to California

    A federal district court judge in Texas recently granted the NLRB’s motion to transfer SpaceX’s constitutional challenge from federal court in Texas to federal court in the Central District of California, where the underlying facts, NLRB hearing, and decision took place (SpaceX v. NLRB (S.D. Tex., No. 24-00001, Motion Granted 2/15/24)).

    SpaceX argued that the Texas venue was proper because SpaceX has operations and employees in Texas who received and were subject to a company letter, distributed nationally, that the NLRB ruled violated employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

    The Texas federal judge rejected SpaceX’s arguments, concluding that the underlying California-based administrative proceedings were brought against a California-based company and involved its California employees. With the transfer of the case to California, SpaceX lost a potentially more favorable appeals court precedent and appellate review. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) is viewed as more conservative than the 9th Circuit, which covers California. In addition, the 5th Circuit has in the past ruled that aspects of decisions by other federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, violate the U.S. Constitution.

    Employer Risk Associated With Targeting Remote Workers for Termination

    Remote work is not in and of itself a protected classification under federal or state civil rights laws. Nonetheless, the reasons for remote work could be protected, such as a disability-related concern. Bloomberg Law commentators conclude that remote workers are more likely to be laid off or miss out on promotional opportunities than peers who work in the office or in hybrid environments. Also according to Bloomberg Law, studies demonstrate that remote workers are more likely to be women, persons of color and those with disability accommodations. Evidence that any of those protected factors contributed to the termination, layoff or failure to promote could give rise to a successful challenge of the employment action under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or applicable state or federal civil rights statutes.

    Disney Actor Tests California State Law Protecting Employees From Discharge for Off-Work Political Comments

    An actor in the Disney show “The Mandalorian” filed a lawsuit claiming that she was unlawfully terminated from the show because of political comments she made outside of the workplace. Actor Gina Carano claims she was terminated after social media posts comparing the treatment of Trump supporters to how Jews were treated during the Holocaust. The plaintiff also alleges that Disney took issue with other comments she made on the COVID-19 vaccine, gender identity and voter fraud during the 2020 election.

    The lawsuit has been filed in federal court in the Central District of California and is being funded by Elon Musk. The suit was filed under a California statute that has broader protections than Title VII in protecting off-work political comments and has no cap on damages. Section 1101 of the California Labor Code protects a worker’s right to political expression outside of work, including speaking up for a candidate or cause.

    The plaintiff also alleges sex discrimination and that Disney treated male actors more favorably in similar circumstances. She alleges that male stars Mark Hamill and her co-star Pedro Pascal were treated more favorably when they engaged in off-work political statements. The breadth of the protection and scope of the California statute will be tested by this litigation brought against Disney.

    NLRB Reverses Decision, Finds Home Depot Violated NLRA Over Employee’s Black Lives Matter Slogan

    A three-member panel of the NLRB ruled 2-1 that Home Depot violated the NLRA when it told an employee that he could not work with a “BLM” slogan on his company-issued apron, thus forcing his resignation (Home Depot USA (NLRB Case no. 18-CA-273796, 2/23/24)). The NLRB panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge who had handled the trial of the case and had ruled in favor of Home Depot, holding that the company had the right to maintain its rules about company uniforms.

    The NLRB panel reversed, concluding that Home Depot violated the NLRA because the record demonstrated the employee’s protest was in furtherance of earlier group complaints about racism in the Home Depot workplace. In these circumstances, the NLRB concluded that the employee’s action in working with a Black Lives Matter slogan on his work apron was protected, concerted activity under the NLRA, as a “logical outgrowth” of earlier employee protests of race discrimination at the specific Home Depot store. The dissenting board member stated in his decision that the majority holding was an “unprecedented extension” of the “logical outgrowth” theory.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR’s Equal Pay Day Data for Higher Education: Women in Higher Ed Are Paid Just 82 Cents on the Dollar, Most Women of Color Are Paid Even Less – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR’s Equal Pay Day Data for Higher Education: Women in Higher Ed Are Paid Just 82 Cents on the Dollar, Most Women of Color Are Paid Even Less – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | March 12, 2024

    Since 1996, the National Committee on Pay Equity has acknowledged Equal Pay Day to bring awareness to the gap between men’s and women’s wages. This year, Equal Pay Day is March 12 — symbolizing how far into the year women must work to be paid what men were paid in the previous year.

    To help higher ed leaders understand, communicate and address gender pay equity in higher education, CUPA-HR has analyzed its annual workforce data to establish Higher Education Equal Pay Days for 2024. Tailored to the higher ed workforce, these dates observe the gender pay gap by marking how long into 2024 women in higher ed must work to make what White men earned the previous year.

    Higher Education Equal Pay Day fell on March 5, 2024, for women overall, which means that women employees in higher education worked for more than two months into this year to gain parity with their White male colleagues. Women in the higher ed workforce make on average just 82 cents for every dollar a White male employed in higher ed makes.

    Highlighting some positive momentum during this Women’s History Month, some groups of women are closer to gaining pay equity. Asian American women in higher ed worked two weeks into this year to achieve parity on January 14 — not ideal, but by no means insignificant. In fact, during the academic year 2022-23, Asian American women administrators in particular saw better pay equity than most other groups, according to CUPA-HR’s analysis.

    But the gender pay gap remains for most women, and particularly for women of color. Here’s the breakdown of the gender pay gap in the higher ed workforce, and the Higher Education Equal Pay Day for each group.* These dates remind us of the work we have ahead.

    • March 5 — Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. On average, women employees in higher education are paid 82 cents on the dollar.
    • January 14 — Asian Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Asian women in higher ed are paid 96 cents on the dollar.
    • March 1 — White Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. White women in higher ed are paid 83 cents on the dollar.
    • March 12 — Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Native of Hawaii or Pacific Islander women in higher ed are paid 80 cents on the dollar.
    • March 28 — Black Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Black women in higher ed are paid 76 cents on the dollar.
    • April 12 — Hispanic/Latina Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Hispanic/Latina women in higher ed are paid 72 cents on the dollar.
    • April 22 — Native American/Alaska Native Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Native American/Alaska Native women are paid just 69 cents on the dollar.

    CUPA-HR research shows that pay disparities exist across employment sectors in higher ed — administrators, faculty, professionals and staff — even as the representation of women and people of color has steadily increased. But with voluntary turnover rising, not addressing pay disparities could be costly.

    CUPA-HR Resources for Higher Education Equal Pay Days

    As we observe Women’s History Month and Higher Education Equal Pay Days for women, we’re reminded that the fight for equal pay is far from over. But data-driven analysis with the assistance of CUPA-HR research can empower your fight for a more equitable future.

    See our interactive graphics that track gender and racial composition, as well as pay, of administrative, faculty, professional, and staff roles, collected from CUPA-HR’s signature surveys:

    *Data Source: 2023-24 CUPA-HR Administrators, Faculty, Professionals, and Staff in Higher Education Surveys. Drawn from 633,020 men and women for whom race/ethnicity was known.



    Source link

  • Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Votes to Unionize – CUPA-HR

    Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Votes to Unionize – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 6, 2024

    On March 5, 2024, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union. The election marks the first time in nearly a decade that student-athletes have been authorized to vote for union representation and may be the first case in which their election results in certified representation.

    Background

    On February 5, the National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Laura Sacks determined that players on the Dartmouth men’s basketball team are employees under the National Labor Relation Act and are thus eligible to unionize. The decision argues that the student-athletes are employees because Dartmouth has the “right to control the work performed by” the players on the team and players receive several benefits, including, but not limited to, lodging, meals, gear and training. Sacks’s decision ordered a secret-ballot election for representation, allowing all 15 players on the roster to determine whether or not to unionize.

    On February 29, Dartmouth filed a request to the NLRB to reconsider the decision made by the regional director and to place a stay on the election or impound the ballots during the reconsideration period. The NLRB rejected these requests to reconsider the decision and stay the election, allowing the election to move forward as scheduled.

    On March 5, before the 13-2 vote, Dartmouth appealed the regional director’s decision to recognize the student-athletes as employees. The appeal asked the NLRB to review and reverse the regional director’s decision and dismiss the petition, making the following arguments in favor of doing so:

    • The NLRB regional director inaccurately defined a student-athlete as an employee.
    • The NLRB regional director contradicted precedent set by a 2015 NLRB decision involving the Northwestern University men’s football team by asserting jurisdiction in this case.*
    • There will be several adverse and unintended consequences for institutions and players if student-athletes are found to be employees, including potential immigration and Title IX issues.

    Looking Ahead

    The SEIU has five days to respond to this appeal, after which the NLRB will consider both motions. The review by the NLRB, along with any further legal challenges that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, might significantly delay the union’s official recognition and the start of collective bargaining negotiations. These processes could take months or even longer to complete.

    Several lawsuits challenging NCAA policies are also ongoing, and other recent NLRB decisions and complaints further challenge the NCAA’s structure and question the classification of student-athletes as employees. Last month, a district court judge in Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction that bars the NCAA from enforcing its policy prohibiting incoming student-athletes from capitalizing on name, image, and likeness deals prior to enrolling at a college or university. Additionally, 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 they are joint employers of the athletes. The NLRB complaint is currently being challenged in court.

    The establishment of a student-athlete union is a divergence from the NCAA’s amateurism standards; for example, unionized players gain opportunities to negotiate compensation and working conditions related to practice hours and travel. With unionized players empowered to negotiate, the landscape of collegiate athletics may undergo a significant shift.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of upcoming developments as it relates to this case.

    *In 2015, the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction in a case involving the Northwestern University men’s football team. Prior to issuing the decision, the men’s football team had voted for representation, but the NLRB ultimately dismissed the petition filed by the union that planned to represent the unit. The NLRB held that, though Northwestern is a private institution, it is a part of the Big Ten Conference, which was comprised of all public schools except for Northwestern at the time.



    Source link

  • New Instructions Clarify USCIS Fee Rule Reductions and Exemptions for Higher Ed – CUPA-HR

    New Instructions Clarify USCIS Fee Rule Reductions and Exemptions for Higher Ed – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 6, 2024

    On March 1, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published updated forms and filing instructions for the I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and the I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. These updates incorporate new fee calculations as outlined in the USCIS fee rule. Notably, the filing instructions state that institutions “of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965” are eligible for the reduced fees and exemption from the Asylum Program fee.

    This clarification follows the issuance of a final rule by USCIS on January 31, 2024, which adjusted the fees for most immigration applications and petitions, resulting in significantly higher fees for most employment-based petitioners. However, due to concerns raised by stakeholders, including CUPA-HR and other higher education institutions, the final rule provided relief for nonprofit organizations in the form of fee reductions as well as an exemption from a newly introduced fee intended to fund the Asylum Program.

    In a previous blog post, CUPA-HR addressed the confusion stemming from the final rule’s reliance on the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a nonprofit organization, particularly 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). This definition caused uncertainty among public universities and colleges, which, while tax-exempt, are not classified as 501(c)(3) entities. The preamble to the final rule suggested that the agency’s approach to defining “nonprofit” was designed to ensure that the primary types of organizations eligible for the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act’s fee reduction — specifically, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and governmental research organizations — would also qualify for fee reductions and exemptions under this rule. However, the possibility of a strict interpretation of “nonprofit” might have left public universities and colleges facing increased fees.

    The updated filing instructions offer much-needed clarity on the fee reductions and exemptions, ensuring that institutions of higher education as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965 will not be overly burdened by petitioner fees.



    Source link

  • NLRB Higher Education Union Election Data for 2023 – CUPA-HR

    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.).

     



    Source link

  • Department of Labor Sends Overtime Rule to OIRA for Review – CUPA-HR

    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.



    Source link

  • The annual graduation rate post

    The annual graduation rate post

    I know I’ve been barking up the tree of “Graduation Rates are inputs, not outputs” for a long time.  And I know no one is listening.  So I do this, just to show you (without the dependent variable) just how unsurprising they are.

    Here are four views of graduation rates at America’s four-year public and private, not-for-profit colleges and universities. And I’ve put them in four views, with several different ways to look at the data.

    The first (using the tabs across the top) shows four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates on the left, and “Chance in four” on the right.  In other words, since everyone pretty much thinks they’re going to graduate from the college they enroll in as a freshman, what are the chances of graduating in four years, rather than six?  There are some surprises there, as you’ll see.

    On all the visualizations, you can apply filters to limit the colleges you’re looking at.  The scroll bar (to move up or down) is on the right but it’s sometimes hard to see.  And the size slider is set to a minimum of 1,000 students, but you can change that; just beware that small colleges often have wonky data, for several reasons.

    The second view shows six-year rates by gender.

    The third view breaks out six-year rates by ethnicity, comparing African-American, Hispanic, and Asian rates (the shapes) to the rate for White students (on the gray bars).

    And the final view breaks out six-year rates by Pell Grant status, then shows the gap between the two on the right. On the gap chart, a negative number shows colleges where Pell graduation rates are higher than non-Pell rates.

    Enjoy! 

    Source link

  • At Hudson County Community College, Inclusion Drives Recruitment and Retention – CUPA-HR

    At Hudson County Community College, Inclusion Drives Recruitment and Retention – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | February 27, 2024

    The motto at Hudson County Community College is “Hudson is Home,” a saying created by their students that reflects HCCC’s commitment to community across their three New Jersey campuses. Located in one of the densest and most ethnically diverse counties in the country, HCCC uses inclusive strategies to boost employee recruitment and retention.

    HCCC’s focus on promoting a culture of care and belonging positions them well to contend with voluntary turnover, which remains on the rise nationally as higher ed employees report feeling overworked and undervalued. HCCC’s inclusion and belonging initiatives, including their new peer-to-peer recognition program, address the top three predictors that employees will seek work elsewhere: recognition for contributions, being valued at work, and having a sense of belonging.

    In their recent CUPA-HR webinar, HCCC’s Anna Krupitskiy, vice president for human resources, and Stephanie Sergeant, assistant director of human resources, explained how they use inclusive strategies to engage their approximately 1,000 employees, including:

    Prioritizing a Culture of Care

    Addressing the needs of parents is one way HCCC creates a culture of care through inclusion. In the past, parents who were employees or students were confronted with unclear and inconsistent guidelines. But the institution’s new parent-friendly children on campus policy makes it clear that children are welcome on HCCC’s three campuses. With the new policy, Krupitskiy says, “we wanted to make sure that there’s a strong message that we do allow children on campus.” HR has also collaborated with campus partners on their Take Your Child to Work Day program, where children of employees engage in a range of campus activities, like participating in science projects or watching a nursing demonstration, before ending the day with an ice cream social.

    Using Checkpoints During Recruitment to Ensure Inclusive Hiring

    HCCC has created checkpoints to ensure there are meaningful milestones to reflect on inclusion during the recruitment and selection process. The first checkpoint is the composition of the hiring committee itself. Krupitskiy and Sergeant stress that screening committees should be representative of HCCC, not just in terms of demographics, but also such characteristics as how long a person has been employed at HCCC, what role or level of position they hold, what union affiliation they have, etc. They’ve also invited students to participate in searches when appropriate.

    Job descriptions are another area they’ve scrutinized, asking if certain minimum qualifications inherently limit a pool of applicants. Might a minimum qualification, like years of experience, be listed as a preferred qualification instead?

    Implementing a Peer-to-Peer Recognition Program  

    Recognizing employee contributions is a critical retention tool. Only 59% of higher ed employees say they receive regular verbal recognition for doing good work, according to CUPA-HR data. To address recognition, HCCC holds a years-of-service event, with awards for five to 40-plus years of service for both part-time and full-time employees. Their new Hudson is Home employee recognition program allows colleagues to nominate each other for awards ranging from Collaboration and Team Achievement to a Part-Time Spotlight award. Employees receive an email notification when they’ve been nominated, which has driven up participation overall.

    To learn more about the programs and initiatives at HCCC — including working to close pay equity gaps and establishing professional development funds — view the recording of Retention Strategies for an Inclusive and Engaged Workforce. For data on higher ed retention challenges and recommendations, see The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey.



    Source link