Tag: CUPAHR

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

    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 6th 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.



    Source link

  • Three Virtual Offerings to Spark Joy and Encourage Self-Care This Valentine’s Day – CUPA-HR

    Three Virtual Offerings to Spark Joy and Encourage Self-Care This Valentine’s Day – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | February 13, 2024

    Even though it’s not mentioned in the job description, stress management is no doubt a daily part of your life in higher ed HR. Prioritizing well-being is also at the forefront of strategies to retain and recruit talent. CUPA-HR has found that 56% of higher ed employees are at least somewhat likely to look for a new position in the coming year, and the strongest predictors of retention are factors related to job satisfaction and well-being.

    You know that attentiveness to mental and physical health helps you and your team thrive, but it may be difficult to find the time and budget to make wellness a daily practice. This Valentine’s Day is an opportunity to treat yourself and your team to the gift of well-being by scheduling time to participate in Well-Being in Higher Education, a week-long virtual event. From February 26 to March 1, CUPA-HR will join with 20+ higher ed associations to help you deepen your knowledge of well-being on your campus and offer moments of connection across the higher ed community.

    CUPA-HR-sponsored sessions include:

    • An Integrated Approach to Fostering Workplace Well-Being
    • Managing Anxiety and Stress in the Workplace
    • Staff Well-Being: Its Role in Creating a Healthy Campus

    You may also want to check out these related CUPA-HR resources:

    Is saying “yes” your love language? Do you struggle to say no even when you don’t have the bandwidth? Learn how to say no with confidence in one of our most popular webinars of 2023, Managing Stress and Self-Care: “No” Is a Complete Sentence, which offers practical tools for minimizing stress and leads participants in creating a self-care plan.

    Help stave off burnout by practicing the skill of resilience. While it may seem like some people are naturally more resilient than others, resilience is a learned skill you can develop and practice in your work and personal life. Learn how in this webinar and accompanying Higher Ed HR Magazine article.



    Source link

  • What HR Should Know About Tenure and Academic Freedom – CUPA-HR

    What HR Should Know About Tenure and Academic Freedom – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | February 6, 2024

    From an HR perspective, faculty positions can often look very different from other professional and staff roles on campus, especially when it comes to those faculty on the tenure track. But as HR’s role in academic staffing expands, it’s critical to understand tenure and its role in supporting academic freedom, says Joerg Tiede, the director of the department of research and public policy with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). In his recent CUPA-HR webinar, Tenure: Past, Present and Future, Tiede explains the nuances of tenure and academic freedom through an HR lens. Here are some key takeaways.

    Tenure and Academic Freedom

    Tenure

    Tenure is an “indefinite appointment that can be terminated only for cause or under extraordinary circumstances such as financial exigency and program discontinuation,” according to the AAUP.

    Tiede notes that this simple definition is often surprising to many in higher ed, because tenure frequently comes with other advantages, such as sabbatical or the ability to vote for or hold a position in faculty senate. But these other benefits are often part of an institution’s culture or a faculty member’s contract, rather than inherent to tenure itself.

    Academic Freedom

    Tiede stresses that tenure exists not as an individual perk, but to protect academic freedom. The AAUP defines academic freedom as “the freedom of a teacher or researcher in higher education to investigate and discuss the issues in his or her academic field, and to teach or publish findings without interference from political figures, boards of trustees, donors, or other entities.” The concept of academic freedom applies to faculty members’ speech and writing on campus as teachers and advisors, in their research, and in their “intramural speech” (e.g., institutional governance) and “extramural speech” (e.g., when speaking as a citizen).

    The AAUP’s 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure is the most widely adopted description of both academic freedom and tenure at institutions of higher education.

    Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

    Not all professors have or are eligible for tenure, including non-tenure-track faculty who may work full time as salaried employees with benefits but are not eligible for tenure. An example of this kind of faculty may be someone whose job functions involve instruction rather than a mix of instruction and research. Other non-tenure-track faculty include adjuncts, who are paid per course and typically do not have a benefits package. The breakdown of who is eligible for tenure differs by institution, with some institutions not having a tenure system at all. See the AAUP’s data on the academic workforce.

    The Future of Tenure and Academic Freedom

    “Tenure is indispensable to the success of an institution,” says Tiede. This is because academic freedom not only strengthens individual institutions by protecting the teaching and research of faculty, but also upholds the public good. The AAUP’s FAQs on academic freedom states: “Those teaching and researching in higher education need academic freedom because the knowledge produced and disseminated in colleges and universities is critical for the development of society and for the health of a democracy, an idea often expressed by the phrase ‘for the common good’ or ‘for the public good.’” In theory, tenure shields faculty from political or religious agendas. It also protects tenured faculty who work in areas that are or may become controversial.

    Tiede notes that academic freedom would be made secure with more broadly inclusive tenure policies. One way this can be accomplished is by converting non-tenure-track positions into tenure-track positions, with the AAUP recommending “only minor changes in job description.” In particular, the conversion of teaching-focused positions from non-tenure-track to tenure-track is recommended. Though tenure is often tied to research accomplishments, Tiede and the AAUP do not view this as inherent to the definition of tenure.

    A more inclusive tenure process also includes reviewing for implicit bias. In breaking down who is tenured or on the tenure track, CUPA-HR has found that more women faculty are represented in non-tenure-track roles than in tenure-track roles. Moreover, with each increase in rank, the proportions of women faculty and faculty of color decrease for both tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty. Taken together, this means that women are over-represented in the lowest-paying and lowest-ranking positions.

    Who gets tenured also has implications for pay equity. Faculty pay raises are commonly tied to promotion and tenure, which is often the only time faculty see a significant increase in their salary. When there is bias in promoting women and faculty of color to successive ranks, this results in career earnings gaps.

    Additional Resources

    Watch Tiede’s webinar, Tenure: Past, Present and Future, which covers the origins and history of tenure and answers HR-specific questions, like whether academic freedom applies to provocative posts on social media and how best to nurture a merit-based culture within a tenure system.

    CUPA-HR’s Toolkit on Academic Freedom contains real-world examples of academic freedom policies at various institutions.

    In Opening Doors for Strategic Partnerships With Academic Leadership, Gonzaga University’s HR pros explain how they cultivated the relationship between HR and the campus community, including leveraging the power of HR champions on their campus.

    Check out CUPA-HR’s e-learning courses, including Boot Camp, which offers a higher ed perspective on essential HR topics, and Understanding Higher Education, which is designed to help all employees be more effective in their roles by developing a deeper understanding of institutional structure and culture.

    Ways to support an increasingly contingent faculty workforce are explored in the article The Way Forward: Envisioning New Faculty Models for a Changing Professoriate. The focus is on The Delphi Project, part of the University of Southern California’s Pullias Center for Higher Education, which explores how non-tenure-track faculty working conditions are tied to student success.



    Source link

  • Department of Education Moves Forward With Title IX Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    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.



    Source link

  • DHS Announces First Phase of Final H-1B Modernization Rule – CUPA-HR

    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.



    Source link

  • USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR

    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.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Submits Letter in Response to Paid Leave RFI – CUPA-HR

    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.



    Source link

  • Newly Updated CUPA-HR Data Shed Light on Trends in Representation and Pay Equity in the Higher Ed Workforce – CUPA-HR

    Newly Updated CUPA-HR Data Shed Light on Trends in Representation and Pay Equity in the Higher Ed Workforce – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | January 22, 2024

    Progress in both representation and equitable pay for women and people of color remained sluggish in most roles on college and university campuses in academic year 2022-23, according to the newest data. Through several interactive graphics representing years of research, CUPA-HR highlights the progress that has been made and the disparities that persist. The data track gender and racial composition as well as pay of administrative, faculty, professional, and staff roles, collected from CUPA-HR’s signature surveys.

    While the representation of women and people of color across all roles has steadily increased, inequity remains, especially when it comes to compensation for women and people of color. However, there were some notable areas of progress when it comes to compensation. Asian women and men of color (except for Native American/Alaskan Native men) in administrative roles saw better pay equity than most other groups.

    Administrators

    The share of racial and ethnic minorities in administrative roles continued to grow over the past decade, but gaps in both representation and pay remained steady. This is especially true for women of color, who represented less than 11% of these roles and, for the most part, received lower salaries than White men.

    In 2022-23, people of color made up 18.7% of administrators, up from 12.9% in 2011-12. Although the proportion of people of color in higher ed administrator positions grew steadily over the last decade, these increases have not kept pace with the rate at which minorities are obtaining graduate degrees.

    No improvement was shown in pay disparities for most women administrators. All female administrators except for Asian women received lower salaries than White men. Conversely, men of color, except for Native American/Alaskan Native men, were paid salaries greater than those of White men.

    The Administrators in Higher Education Survey collects data on administrator positions that manage a higher ed institution or a division within it.

    See the Administrators Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics, as well as data broken out by CEO, provost and chief HR officer.

    Faculty

    There are two notable findings regarding faculty composition. First, more women faculty were represented in non-tenure-track roles than in tenure-track roles in 2022-23. Second, with each increase in rank, the proportions of women faculty and faculty of color decreased for both tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty. Taken together, this means that women were over-represented in the lowest-paying and lowest-ranking positions.

    Pay gaps within rank persist, particularly for women faculty at the professor level, regardless of tenure status. These gaps are most notable for female professors of color in non-tenure-track positions. Pay gaps for assistant and associate professors have narrowed over time, particularly for tenure-track faculty.

    The factor that most impacts faculty pay is promotion to a higher rank, which is often the only time faculty receive significant increases in salary. When there is bias in promoting women and faculty of color to successive ranks, as our data continued to show, this results in career earnings gaps that far exceed what is often detected in pay equity studies within rank for a given year.

    The Faculty in Higher Education Survey collects data on tenure-track faculty positions and non-tenure-track teaching faculty positions.

    See the Faculty Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics.

    Professionals

    In academic year 2022-23, women of all races and ethnicities were paid less than their male counterparts in professional roles, while women’s representation increased from 58% to 61% across all professional positions since 2016-17. The growth is due to slight increases in the representation of women of color, from 13.1% in 2016-17 to 15.7% in 2022-23.

    Representation by gender and race/ethnicity varied widely by position. Human resources had the greatest share of women professionals, with 82% being women, including 28% women of color. Information technology had the lowest percentage of professional women (27%), and librarians and development/fundraising professionals had the lowest representation of professionals of color (14%).

    While pay was more equitable for most groups (apart from Hispanic/Latina women and men of two or more races), pay disparities persisted. Women of all races and ethnicities were paid less than their male counterparts. In addition, Hispanic/Latino men, Native Hawaiian men, and men of two or more races were paid less than White men.

    The Professionals in Higher Education Survey collects data on positions in specific functional areas in higher ed institutions, such as academic or student services, that usually require a baccalaureate degree.

    See the Professionals Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics.

    Staff

    Staff roles continued to have a higher representation of people of color than any other higher ed employee group last year. Staff also continued to be the lowest-paying positions in higher ed, with women particularly hard hit by pay disparities.

    In 2022-23, women of color represented about 19% of all higher ed staff, and men of color represent about 13% of all higher ed staff — a modest increase since 2016-17. Skilled craft employees were the least racially diverse, a finding that has persisted across the past six years. Notably, skilled craft staff are among the highest-paid staff positions.

    Since 2016-17, women were paid consistently and considerably less than White men. Pay equity for American Indian/Alaska Native women, Asian women, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander women was better in 2022-23 than in 2016-17. Pay equity was the same or worse in 2022-23 than in 2016-17 for Black women, Hispanic/Latina women, women of two or more races, and White women. Men of color fared considerably better than women of color when it came to pay equity.

    The Staff in Higher Education Survey collects data on positions that are generally non-exempt and do not require a college degree.

    See the Staff Composition and Pay Equity by Gender and Race/Ethnicity interactive graphics.

    CUPA-HR Research

    CUPA-HR is the recognized authority on compensation surveys for higher education, with its workforce surveys designed by higher ed HR professionals for higher ed HR professionals and other campus leaders.



    Source link

  • Ten Higher Ed HR Stories That Defined 2023 – CUPA-HR

    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.



    Source link

  • Bridging 2023 and 2024: Key U.S. Immigration Updates From December – CUPA-HR

    Bridging 2023 and 2024: Key U.S. Immigration Updates From December – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 11, 2024

    December was a busy month for immigration-related developments, with several important updates that have implications for the higher education sector. In this post, we provide highlights of the actions that took place last month.

    CUPA-HR Joins Comments to DHS on H-1B Modernization NPRM

    On December 22, 2023, CUPA-HR and 19 other higher education associations joined comments led by the American Council on Education (ACE) in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) H-1B Modernization Proposal. Additionally, CUPA-HR joined 73 organizations from the higher education, state and local economic development, business, science, and policy sectors to submit a comment in response to the H-1B Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’s (NPRM) proposed definition for specialty occupations.

    The ACE-led letter expresses support for several of the proposed changes. These include the change to a beneficiary-centric lottery system, codifying DHS policy of deference to prior adjudications of Form I-129 petitions, clarifying the term “normally” in specialty occupation criteria, and implementing an automatic extension for CAP-GAP. (CAP-GAP is the time between the official end-date of an F-1 student visa and the start date of the H-1B visa). However, the letter also expresses concerns about proposed changes to the definition of a “specialty occupation” and “specific specialty requirement” in the H-1B visa program. The concerns highlight the potential limitation on the ability to attract diverse candidates for faculty positions and the narrowing pipeline for growth in high-technology fields, which could deter foreign students and hinder research and innovation in the United States. The letter calls for a reconsideration of these proposed changes to ensure that H-1B visa regulations align with the evolving dynamics of professional education and the modern workforce.

    In the multi-sector comment letter, CUPA-HR joined voices to address concerns over the H-1B NPRM’s proposed redefinition of “specialty occupations.” This diverse coalition raised issues about the potential negative impacts of these changes on interdisciplinary hiring, particularly in emerging science and technology fields. They argued that the new requirements, like the need for a degree to be “directly related” to job duties, could limit U.S. competitiveness in global innovation and create challenges for employers.

    Now that the comment period has concluded, the DHS will begin the process of reviewing the feedback received. As the department moves toward finalizing the proposals within this rulemaking, they may issue one or more final rules, depending on the availability of agency resources. CUPA-HR will continue to closely monitor these developments and keep its members informed of all significant updates and outcomes.

    State Department Announces Extension and Expansion of the Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Waiver Program

    On December 21, 2023, the Department of State (DOS) determined that, in consultation with DHS, certain categories of interview waivers are in the national interest. As a result, consular officers will continue to have the authority and discretion to waive an in-person interview for certain categories of nonimmigrant visa cases, with some changes made by DOS.

    This update includes the following key changes.

    • First-time H-2 Visa Applicants: Temporary agricultural and non-agricultural workers applying for H-2 visas are now eligible for an interview waiver.
    • Extended Eligibility for Other Visa Applicants: The waiver also applies to applicants for any nonimmigrant visa classification who have previously been issued a visa other than a B visa and are reapplying within 48 months of their last visa’s expiration.
    • Renewal Policy Unchanged: Applicants renewing their nonimmigrant visa in the same classification within 48 months of the prior visa’s expiration date continue to be eligible for the interview waiver.

    The department’s previous interview waiver eligibility criteria were set to expire on December 31, 2023. Not only has the program been extended as of January 1, but it now also includes more nonimmigrant categories. Notably, the current guidance is intended to remain in place indefinitely, as no expiration date has been specified.

    DOL Issues Request for Information on PERM Schedule A Revisions

    On December 21, 2023, in alignment with President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 on Artificial Intelligence, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) issued a Request for Information (RFI) that aims to gather public feedback on potential updates to Schedule A job classifications that exempt certain roles from the standard labor certification requirements. Specifically, the DOL is exploring the inclusion of AI, other STEM-related occupations, and additional fields where there is a notable shortage of qualified U.S. workers.

    According to the Immigration and Nationality Act’s labor certification provisions, employers are obligated to demonstrate that there are insufficient U.S. workers available and that hiring foreign nationals will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similar U.S. roles. This process is managed through the Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) system by the ETA. Employers seeking labor certification for prospective permanent immigrant workers must navigate a complex and time-consuming process, often extending the immigration timeline.

    Schedule A, established by the DOL in the mid-1960s, pre-certifies occupations experiencing national labor shortages, thereby waiving the labor certification requirement for these roles. Currently, Schedule A is divided into two groups: Group I comprises physical therapists and professional nurses, and Group II includes occupations that require exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or performing arts. With this RFI, the DOL aims to critically examine and potentially broaden Schedule A’s scope, a move that could accelerate the hiring of essential foreign talent by aligning with evolving labor market demands and streamlining the employment authorization process.

    Key areas where the department seeks input include the following.

    1. Identifying Labor Shortages in STEM: The department invites suggestions on the most appropriate data sources and methods to ascertain whether there are labor shortages in STEM occupations. They are interested in understanding if Schedule A should be utilized to mitigate these shortages and how to develop a reliable, objective, and transparent method to identify STEM occupations facing labor shortages.
    2. Scope of STEM Occupations: There’s a need for input on whether the examination of STEM occupations should be limited to those outlined in the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics and recent Bureau of Labor Statistics publications, or whether it should be broadened to include additional occupations, particularly those covering Skilled Technical Work occupations.
    3. Inclusion of Non-STEM Occupations: The department is also open to suggestions on whether non-STEM occupations facing worker shortages should be added to Schedule A. Input is sought on how to determine such shortages and ensure that the employment of foreign workers in these roles does not negatively impact U.S. workers.

    Comments in response to the RFI are due on February 20, 2024.

    U.S. Department of State Announces Pilot Program for Domestic Renewal of H-1B Visas

    On December 21, 2023, DOS announced a pilot program to resume domestic visa renewal for H-1B nonimmigrant visa applicants who meet certain requirements. It offers eligible H-1B visa holders the chance to renew their visas within the U.S., bypassing the need for an in-person interview at a consulate or embassy. DOS will start accepting online applications for the H-1B visa renewal pilot program on January 29, 2024.

    Eligibility for the U.S. Department of State’s H-1B visa renewal pilot program is defined by a set of specific criteria:

    • Visa Classification and Issuance: The program is strictly for those looking to renew an H-1B visa. Eligible visas must have been issued by Mission Canada (from January 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023) or Mission India (from February 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021).
    • Fee and Interview Requirements: Applicants should not be subject to a nonimmigrant visa issuance fee, often referred to as a “reciprocity fee,” and must be eligible for a waiver of the in-person interview.
    • Biometric and Visa Status: Participants must have previously submitted ten fingerprints for a visa application, and their prior visa should not include a “clearance received” annotation. Additionally, they must not have any visa ineligibilities requiring a waiver.
    • Petition and Status Maintenance: It’s essential that applicants have an approved, unexpired H-1B petition, are currently maintaining H-1B status in the U.S., and their period of authorized admission in this status has not expired.
    • Travel and Reentry Intent: Applicants must have been last admitted to the U.S. in H-1B status and intend to reenter the U.S. in the same status after temporary travel abroad.

    Background and Objectives. The pilot is a response to the discontinuation of domestic non-diplomatic visa renewals in 2004 due to the requirement for biometric identifiers. With advancements in technology, the DOS is now looking to assess its capacity to handle domestic renewals and reduce global visa application backlogs. This pilot is particularly aimed at alleviating uncertainties for U.S. companies employing temporary H-1B workers.

    Application Process:

    • Application Portal: U.S. Visa Employment Domestic Renewal.
    • Slot Allocation: Approximately 4,000 slots will be available weekly, split between applicants with visas issued by Mission Canada and Mission India.
    • Application Dates: January 29, February 5, 12, 19, and 26. The portal will close temporarily once weekly caps are reached.
    • Application Window: The program will close on April 1, 2024, or when all slots are filled, whichever is earlier.

    Currently, the program excludes categories like H-4 visas. The DOS plans to extend the program to more visa types in the future, but for now, it’s limited to H-1B principal applicants meeting the specified criteria.



    Source link