Tag: CUPAHR

  • Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 9, 2023

    On October 23, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule that aims to improve the H-1B program by simplifying the application process, increasing the program’s efficiency, offering more advantages and flexibilities to both petitioners and beneficiaries, and strengthening the program’s integrity measures.

    Background

    The H-1B visa program is pivotal for many sectors, particularly higher education. It permits U.S. employers to employ foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or higher or its equivalent. The program is subject to an annual limit of 65,000 visas, with an additional allocation of 20,000 visas reserved for foreign nationals who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher. Certain workers are exempt from this cap, including those at higher education institutions or affiliated nonprofit entities and nonprofit or governmental research organizations.

    Highlights of the Proposed Rule

    Prompted by challenges with the H-1B visa lottery, USCIS has prioritized a proposed rule to address the system’s integrity. The move comes after a surge in demand for H-1B visas led to the adoption of a lottery for fair distribution. However, with the fiscal year 2024 seeing a historic 758,994 registrations and over half of the candidates being entered multiple times, there was concern over potential exploitation to skew selection chances. This proposed rule is a direct response to strengthen the registration process and prevent fraud.

    Beyond addressing lottery concerns, the proposal makes critical revisions to underlying H-1B regulations. It seeks to formalize policies currently in place through guidance and tweak specific regulatory aspects.

    Amending the Definition of a “Specialty Occupation.” At present, a “specialty occupation” is identified as a job that requires unique, specialized knowledge in fields like engineering, medicine, education, business specialties, the arts, etc., and it typically mandates a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific area or its equivalent. USCIS is proposing to refine the definition of a “specialty occupation” to ensure that the required degree for such positions is directly related to the job duties. The proposal specifies that general degrees without specialized knowledge do not meet the criteria, and petitioners must prove the connection between the degree field(s) and the occupation’s duties. The rule would allow for different specific degrees to qualify for a position if each degree directly relates to the occupation’s responsibilities. For example, a bachelor’s degree in either education or chemistry could be suitable for a chemistry teacher’s position if both are relevant to the job. The changes emphasize that the mere possibility of qualifying for a position with an unrelated degree is insufficient, and specific degrees must impart highly specialized knowledge pertinent to the role.

    Amending the Criteria for Specialty Occupation Positions. USCIS is proposing updates to the criteria defining a “specialty occupation” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal includes a clarification of the term “normally,” which, in the context of a specialty occupation, indicates that a bachelor’s degree is typically, but not always, necessary for the profession. USCIS is aiming to standardize this term to reflect a type, standard, or regular pattern, reinforcing that the term “normally” does not equate to “always.”

    Extending F-1 Cap-Gap Protection. USCIS is proposing to revise the Cap-Gap provisions, which currently extend employment authorization for F-1 students awaiting H-1B visa approval until October 1 of the fiscal year for which H–1B visa classification has been requested. The Cap-Gap refers to the period between the end of an F-1 student’s Optional Practical Training (OPT) and the start of their H-1B status, which can lead to a gap in lawful status or employment authorization. The new proposal seeks to extend this period until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B visa is filed, or until the visa is approved, to better address processing delays and reduce the risk of employment authorization interruption. To be eligible, the H-1B petition must be legitimate and filed on time. This change is intended to support the U.S. in attracting and maintaining skilled international workers by providing a more reliable transition from student to professional status.

    Cap-Exempt Organizations. USCIS is redefining which employers are exempt from the H-1B visa cap. The proposed changes involve revising the definition of “nonprofit research organization” and “governmental research organization” from being “primarily engaged” in research to conducting research as a “fundamental activity.” This proposed change would enable organizations that might not focus primarily on research, but still fundamentally engage in such activities, to qualify for the exemption. Additionally, USCIS aims to accommodate beneficiaries not directly employed by a qualifying organization but who still perform essential, mission-critical work.

    Deference. USCIS is proposing to codify a policy of deference to prior adjudications of Form I-129 petitions, as delineated in the USCIS Policy Manual, mandating that officers give precedence to earlier decisions when the same parties and material facts recur. This proposal, however, includes stipulations that such deference is not required if there were material errors in the initial approval, if substantial changes in circumstances or eligibility have occurred, or if new and pertinent information emerges that could negatively influence the eligibility assessment.

    Next Steps

    While this summary captures key elements of the proposed changes, our members should be aware that the rule contains other important provisions that warrant careful review. These additional provisions could also significantly impact the H-1B visa program and its beneficiaries, and it is crucial for all interested parties to examine the proposed rule in its entirety to understand its full implications.

    USCIS is accepting public comment on its proposal through December 22, 2023. CUPA-HR is evaluating the proposed revisions and will be working with other higher education associations to submit comprehensive comments for the agency’s consideration. As USCIS moves towards finalizing the proposals within this rulemaking, potentially through one or more final rules depending on the availability of agency resources, CUPA-HR will keep its members informed of all significant updates and outcomes.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Submits Comments in Response to DOL’s Overtime Rulemaking – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Submits Comments in Response to DOL’s Overtime Rulemaking – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 2023

    On November 7, CUPA-HR, joined by 49 other higher education associations, submitted comments in response to the Department of Labor (DOL) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to update the salary threshold for the “white collar” exemptions to the FLSA overtime pay requirements from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 per year — a nearly 70% increase.* Additionally, the department proposes to automatically increase the salary level every three years.

    CUPA-HR’s comments highlight the concerns from institutions across the country and ask that the DOL consider four recommendations:

    1) The DOL Should Not Update the Salary Threshold at This Time

    The DOL most recently updated the minimum salary threshold in 2020. CUPA-HR welcomed updates at the time, given the minimum threshold had not been successfully updated since 2004 and the level proposed in 2019 was appropriate at the time. With the most recent update becoming effective in 2020, we believe it is too soon for the DOL to move forward with another update to the minimum salary threshold.

    2) The DOL Should Lower the Proposed Minimum Salary Threshold and Account for Room and Board

    If the DOL does choose to move forward with an increase to the threshold, we believe that the proposed minimum salary threshold is too high. Updating the salary level from $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $1,158 per week ($60,209 per year) leads to a nearly 70% increase, which will result in a large number of employees being reclassified to nonexempt status. To avoid having to reclassify certain employees to nonexempt status, we ask that the DOL consider room and board as part of an employee’s total salary when considering if such employees meet the minimum salary threshold.

    3) The DOL Should Not Implement Automatic Updates to the Salary Threshold

    In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to implement automatic updates to the salary threshold that would occur every three years. CUPA-HR believes that the DOL does not have the authority to implement automatic updates under the FLSA and that automatic increases will negatively impact institutions’ budgets, their ability to provide merit-based increases, and employee morale.

    4) The DOL Should Extend the Effective Date of Any Final Rule Implementing a Higher Salary Threshold

    According to the NPRM, the DOL anticipates providing 60 days for compliance with a final rule once it is published by the agency. CUPA-HR believes 60 days is too short a timeframe to assess the impact, plan, and implement appropriate changes on campus. Instead, we ask for an effective date that is at least 180 days after any final rule is published.

    CUPA-HR’s president and chief executive officer, Andy Brantley, shared the following: “To say campuses are extremely concerned with the Department of Labor’s proposed rule increasing the minimum salary threshold to the FLSA overtime pay requirements by almost 70% would be an understatement. Employees in positions that clearly meet the three criteria to qualify as white-collar employees who are exempt from the federal overtime pay requirement will be forced into nonexempt positions.”

    In addition to submitting these comments, CUPA-HR also joined the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity’s comment letter addressing concerns with the proposed rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates relating to this proposed rule and our advocacy efforts as the department moves toward finalizing these regulations.

    * 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 NPRM 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, references 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

  • HR and the Courts — November 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — November 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 2023

    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.

    California Becomes First State to Mandate Workplace Violence Prevention Plans

    Under a new law, the first broad state law of its kind, most employers in California must now adopt workplace violence prevention plans by next summer. Before now, hospitals in California were the only group of employers required by state law to adopt workplace violence prevention plans. What specifically must be included in the plan is vague under the terms of the statute. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) will be responsible for implementation of this statute and stated that it would adopt an appropriate workplace violence set of standards for employers.

    The law will require employers to establish written plans, employee training and tracking of violent acts. Plans must be specific for each workplace and tailored to meet the individual circumstances of each setting. Commentators are looking for further guidance from Cal/OSHA on the specific details that must be covered by employer plans.

    Mandatory Time Off for Reproductive Loss

    California and Illinois are leading the way in the adoption of state laws mandating that employers guarantee time off following a miscarriage or other reproductive loss to ensure leave for grieving. The laws guarantee employees up to five days of paid or unpaid leave following a reproductive loss including miscarriage and still birth, as well as failed adoption, invitro or surrogacy. Utah has adopted a similar policy for state employees, and several cities have adopted similar statutes. Some national employers already voluntarily include reproductive losses in time-off provisions for employees.

    NLRB Lowers the Bar to Prove Joint Employer Status — May Impact Student-Athlete Cases

    The National Labor Relations Board rescinded a Trump-era regulation requiring that an alleged joint employer must have “direct and immediate” control exercised over employees to prove joint employer status. Under the new standard, if an alleged joint employer indirectly controls job terms or conditions of employment, it is a joint employer subject to NLRB jurisdiction. This will have immediate application to the ongoing dispute as to whether the NCAA and athletic conferences are joint employers of student-athletes, as they exercise control over rules that student-athletes must adhere to.

    This also may affect the NLRB’s attempt to exert jurisdiction over student-athletes at public colleges and universities. While the NLRB has no jurisdiction over public entities, its general counsel is asserting jurisdiction over those student-athletes at public institutions based on the legal theory that the NCAA and/or the athletic conferences are joint employers.

    Student-Athlete Unionization Issue May Affect Smaller Institutions and Athletic Programs

    Two additional, separate NLRB cases are winding their way to a decision on whether student-athletes meet the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act and are therefore eligible to unionize. A West Coast case involves the NLRB issuing a complaint claiming that the University of Southern California, the NCAA, and the PAC-12 Conference are joint employers of student basketball and football players and have unlawfully refused to bargain with any union.

    An East Coast case involves a union petition filed by the Service Employees International Union to represent Dartmouth College basketball players. Dartmouth has argued that its basketball players are not employees under the NLRA, as they do not receive sports scholarships and the basketball program does not generate money for the institution.

    Commentators at Bloomberg have concluded that decisions allowing unionization of college athletes may have the most serious repercussions for smaller institutions and even small athletic programs that do not generate revenue at large institutions.

    Class Actions Proliferate Related to Washington State’s Pay Transparency Law  

    A series of 40 or so class actions filed against major employers in Washington state — including Adidas, Home Depot and Marriott — will test the reach of the new Washington state job ad and pay transparency law. The Washington state law, like similar statutes in California, Colorado and New York, requires employers to provide pay ranges and benefits information in job ads, with the aim of improving pay equity for women and employees of color.

    The Washington and California laws also provide plaintiff applicants with a private right to sue, with Washington’s statute incentivizing plaintiffs to sue. It grants plaintiffs an award of actual damages proven or $5000, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees upon proving a pay transparency violation.

    Former Women’s Basketball Coach Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

    The former head women’s basketball coach at the University of Montana has lost the sex discrimination lawsuit she filed following her termination after a poor win-loss record and serious culture complaints made by players and parents, including players threatening to leave the university if she remained as coach. The court also granted a positive inference to the university’s stated rationale for termination under the “same actor” doctrine, where in this case the same athletic director that hired the plaintiff was the person who made the decision to fire the plaintiff (Schweyen v. Univ of Montana–Missoula (2023 BL 390525, D. Mont. 9.21-cv-00138, 10/31/23)).

    The prior coach had a compiled 38-year performance of winning 75% of her games, while the plaintiff had only one winning season in the four years she served as head coach. The court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to compare herself to a men’s basketball coach who had lost team players to transfer, citing multiple federal cases that have rejected arguments that disparate treatment between men’s and women’s sports teams creates an inference of discriminatory animus under Title VII.



    Source link

  • Gender-Inclusive HR Strategies: Are You on the Right Track? – CUPA-HR

    Gender-Inclusive HR Strategies: Are You on the Right Track? – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | November 6, 2023

    This year’s Transgender Awareness Week (November 13-19) is an opportunity for HR pros to educate themselves about daily steps that make a more inclusive workplace. It’s also a good time to review strategies for inclusion for all employees, including those who are transgender, nonbinary, and agender, among other gender identities.

    Small Steps to a More Gender-Inclusive Workplace

    At this year’s CUPA-HR annual conference, Jon Humiston of Central Michigan University laid out some simple actions everyone can take to make gender inclusiveness a daily practice. They suggest:

    • Use gender-inclusive language when referring to groups of people. For example, use terms like “people” or “individuals” rather than “ladies and gentlemen.”
    • Pay attention to the assumptions you make about someone’s gender identity and expression.
    • Feel free to ask about pronouns or share your own pronouns, but don’t require people to share theirs, as they may be uncomfortable doing so.
    • Use “pronouns” rather than “preferred pronouns,” since it’s not a preference but an identity.
    • Do know that it’s OK if you make a mistake by accidentally misgendering someone. Apologize and move on. If you repeatedly make the same mistake, it might be time to practice. Consider using AI, like ChatGPT, as a conversation tool or asking a friend to be a practice buddy.

    HR’s Role in Creating a Gender-Affirming Culture

    Jon also proposed a framework for higher ed HR to review inclusion policies, focusing on transgender and nonbinary employees, but with potential benefits for all employees. Reviewing the following questions (adapted from sources such as CUPA-HR and Out & Equal toolkits) will help you identify potential gaps in your institution’s efforts to be gender inclusive.

    Policies and Procedures

    • Do you have a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, sex (or biological sex), gender identity and gender expression?
    • Do you allow employees to identify their gender outside of the gender binary?
    • Do you have a name-in-use policy or chosen-name policy that is easy to access and navigate?
    • Do systems such as software allow for gender pronouns to be included?
    • Does health insurance cover benefits for transgender and nonbinary employees?
    • Is gender-inclusive language used in internal and external materials (marketing, job ads, etc.)?
    • Are gender-inclusive bathroom locations shared with all potential employees during the interview process and all new employees?

    Programmatic Support

    • Do you have an Employee Resource Group for LGBTQIA+ employees?
    • Do you have LGBTQIA+ safe-zone training available for all employees?

    Visibility

    • Does your institution publicly show its support of LGBTQIA+ communities during Pride Month, National Coming Out Day, National Day of Silence, etc.?
    • Does your institution publicly address hate and bias crimes that occur, or have a plan for doing so?
    • Does your institution have a presence at local LGBTQIA+ pride events?

    Making the Case for Gender Inclusion

    Policies that support LGBTQIA+ employees benefit all employees.

    For example, flexible work arrangements are desired by two-thirds of the higher ed workforce, yet most campus staff members must work on-site. For employees experiencing misgendering at work or in public, a day working from home might provide them the respite they need from the exhaustion of being misgendered or experiencing gender dysphoria.

    Both job seekers and current employees want their workplace cultures to be inclusive. According to a recent Workhuman study, 72 percent of employees see this as somewhat or very important to them. Inclusive cultures also promote creativity and innovation and may reduce absenteeism.

    Preventing workplace discrimination and harassment is also a matter of regulatory compliance. The EEOC recently published new proposed guidance on preventing workplace harassment, including several examples of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

    The Future of Gender Inclusion

    The makeup of the higher ed workplace won’t look the same in the years to come. The share of Americans who know someone whose gender differs from the sex they were assigned at birth continues to grow, with 44 percent of Americans saying they know someone who is trans and 20 percent saying they know someone who is nonbinary.

    If a major overhaul of institutional inclusion policies isn’t something you’re in a position to initiate, Jon suggests networking with your colleagues at other institutions to provide support, personally recognizing national days of awareness or remembrance, and encouraging allyship.

    Additional Resources

    Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace (CUPA-HR Toolkit)

    Assessing LGBTQI+ Inclusion in Your Workplace (Out & Equal Toolkit)

    A Guide to Gender Identity Terms

    What’s Your Pronoun? Strategies for Inclusion in the Workplace



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released its final rule amending the standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The rule replaces the board’s 2020 final rule on the same issue and greatly expands joint employer status under the NLRA.

    The final rule establishes joint employer status of two or more employers if they “share or co-determine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment,” such as wages, benefits and other compensation; work and scheduling; hiring and discharge; discipline; workplace health and safety; supervision; and assignment and work rules. Today’s final rule finds that either indirect control or reserved control may stand alone as sufficient for finding that a joint employer relationship exists. The final rule specifically states that an entity may be considered a joint employer if it possesses the authority to control one or more essential terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that authority is exercised, or if it exercises the power to indirectly control one or more terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that power is exercised directly. This is a departure from the 2020 rule, which found that an entity must exercise substantial direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment to be considered a joint employer.

    Joint employment has recently been a focal point for higher ed institutions as disputes around the worker classification of student-athletes continue. Last year, an NLRB regional office announced it would be pursuing a complaint by a student-athlete advocacy group that filed an unfair labor practice charge against that the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA, alleging that the three entities are joint employers who violated the NLRA by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ non-employees.” The case is set to be heard by an administrative law judge in November, but a final decision could take years to come to fruition.

    This final rule could have significant implications for private institutions, as they fall under the NLRB’s jurisdiction. Public institutions are not impacted by this rulemaking, as the NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public entities.

    CUPA-HR is assessing the final rule and will provide members with more information as it becomes available.



    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published new proposed guidance for employees and employers on navigating and preventing workplace harassment. “Enforced Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” highlights and upholds existing federal employment discrimination laws and precedence, such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

    The Updated Guidance

    The proposed enforcement guidance provides an overview and examples of situations that would constitute workplace harassment. Of particular interest are provisions included that reflect new and existing protections from harassment under federal laws and precedence, as well as emerging issues surrounding the workforce. The guidance discusses the following notable provisions for consideration:

    • Pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. The guidance states that sex-based harassment includes harassment revolving around pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, all of which are protected under federal laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the recently enacted PWFA.
    • Sexual orientation and gender identity. The guidance provides several examples of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which is considered sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.
    • Virtual and online harassment. The guidance states that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile environment, providing examples such as harassing comments made during remote calls or discriminatory imagery being visible in an employee’s workspace while in a work-related video call. Additionally, the guidance provides examples of conduct on social media outside of work-related contexts that may contribute to hostile work environments if such conduct impacts the workplace.

    In the proposed guidance, the EEOC reminds stakeholders that the final guidance will “not have the force and effect of law” and that such guidance is “not meant to bind the public in any way.” Instead, the document “is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Commission policies.”

    Looking Ahead

    The proposed guidance is open for public comments through November 1, 2023. Once the comment period closes, the EEOC will review all feedback they received and make changes to address the comments prior to issuing a final rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this EEOC guidance, as well as new and existing laws falling under the EEOC’s jurisdiction.



    Source link

  • Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 18, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the Department of Education released a report titled “Strategies for Increasing Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education.” The report was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling against affirmative action in college admissions and it outlines ways institutions and states can adapt to prioritize improved accessibility to educational opportunities for underserved students.

    The Report

    In an introductory message for the report, Secretary of Education Matthew Cardona emphasized the enduring commitment to equal opportunity and student body diversity in higher education on behalf of his department and the president’s administration. While condemning the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action, Cardona pledged the Department of Education’s and the Biden administration’s support in promoting inclusivity and equity and stimulating long-term prosperity.

    The Department of Education’s report centers around four areas that the administration believes institutions should consider when working to promote diversity and opportunity on campus: student recruitment, admissions, financial aid and student retention. The report focuses mostly on promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in these areas to ensure underserved students have an equitable opportunity to be admitted into and succeed in postsecondary programs.

    Relevant to higher education HR, the report discusses the need for improved training of admissions officers and other employees to ensure consistent, equitable evaluations of applicants.

    Moving Forward

    Prior to the release of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, stakeholders also raised concerns regarding the impact such a decision could have on hiring and employment decisions as well as programs or initiatives focused on creating diverse and inclusive workplaces that align with institutional values. The decision to strike down race-based affirmative action in admissions practices could leave employers open to future legal challenges regarding their hiring decisions and other diversity programs.

    CUPA-HR endorses efforts to promote inclusive communities on campuses across the nation. The government relations team continues to track developments impacting these efforts and will inform members of updates as they become available.



    Source link

  • Three Questions to Help You Build a Better Workplace Culture — Annual Conference Takeaways – CUPA-HR

    Three Questions to Help You Build a Better Workplace Culture — Annual Conference Takeaways – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 18, 2023

    Culture was at the heart of the three keynote events at CUPA-HR’s 2023 national conference, which took place recently in New Orleans. Our keynote speakers asked thought-provoking questions that resonate with higher ed HR’s mission. Engaging with these questions can help you boost employee engagement, promote a culture of inclusivity and strengthen collaboration with your campus colleagues.

    1. Are You Creating an Ecosystem of Opportunity?

    Organizations with strong learning cultures tend to have significantly higher retention rates.

    In her keynote presentation on employee retention, business strategist and author Erica Keswin pointed out that the days of climbing the same corporate ladder for 50 years are long gone. Organizations are flatter, which means you need to get creative to give people opportunities to move not only up, but sideways, helping them gain new skills and find new pathways for their careers. Instead of thinking “ladders,” Keswin said, think “lilypads.”

    She also encouraged attendees to talk about employee learning opportunities early and often, beginning with their onboarding programs! Managers should be talking regularly with employees about what skills they want to learn and giving them the opportunity to learn with no strings attached.

    The mission, values and priorities of higher education have learning at their core, and that culture of learning is a value proposition higher ed is uniquely positioned to provide as an employer. Make it work to your advantage by prioritizing learning and opportunity for all employees.

    Another key takeaway from Keswin’s presentation was the importance of being a “human professional” and checking in with your team on a regular basis. She shared the story of a company that starts team meetings with a quick check-in called “Pick Your Nic.” Referring to a popular meme of Nicolas Cage images representing different feelings (happy, relaxed, excited, focused, stressed, meh, etc.), each person picks the Nic that represents how they’re feeling that day. The goal isn’t to address the responses in the meeting, but rather to give the team leader the opportunity to take a pulse and to give team members the opportunity to be seen and heard.

    You’ll find more retention strategies in Keswin’s new book, The Retention Revolution: 7 Surprising (and Very Human!) Ways to Keep Employees Connected to Your Company. And be sure to check out the article “The Higher Ed Employee Retention Crisis — and What to Do About It” in the fall issue of Higher Ed HR Magazine.

    2. Are You Treating Diversity as a Problem to Be Managed or a Value to Be Cherished?

    When it comes to creating and sustaining a more inclusive culture, Princeton professor and religion scholar Dr. Eddie S. Glaude Jr. prompted attendees to consider a question: Do you view diversity as a problem to be managed or a value to be cherished?

    Through a problem-solving lens, we might see diversity as a series of goals to be met and obstacles to be overcome. Through the lens of a cherished value, on the other hand, we are more likely to see every situation as an opportunity to expand and celebrate diversity of people and ideas. A problem-solving lens divides “us” from “others,” while a value-based lens sees diversity as constitutive of who we are, as a people, a country and an institution. Instead of envisioning inclusion as something undertaken in response to a mandate or in compliance with a law, what if diversity was seen as key metric of an institution’s success?

    The data support the positive impact of diversity on metrics like productivity and creativity in the workplace, and Glaude urged higher education to also view diversity as an integral part of its core identity and a reflection of its regional or national reach.

    To see how your institution compares to others when it comes to composition of your workforce and pay equity for employees, see the results of CUPA-HR’s signature surveys.

    3. Are You Ramping Up Retention Efforts in Your Most Vulnerable Departments?

    Retention and recruitment were on everyone’s mind at CUPA-HR’s annual conference. The closing panel discussion brought together leaders in student affairs, campus facilities and IT and provided insights on how HR can partner with these campus constituencies to support a culture of belonging. Here are a few of their recommendations:

    Provide training opportunities.

    John O’Brien, president of EDUCAUSE, which represents IT professionals in higher ed, stressed the importance of career pathways to support employees’ desire to grow in their careers.

    Noting that “supervisors will make or break us,” Lander Medlin, president and CEO of APPA, which serves the needs of facilities professionals, stressed the critical role that supervisor training has on retention and workplace culture in facilities, where the aging of the skilled craft workforce has posed unique recruitment and retention challenges, and all areas.

    Ensure employees feel they belong and are valued.

    No matter their role on campus, employees want their opinions to be heard and valued.

    Kevin Kruger, president of NASPA, the association for student affairs administrators in higher education, noted that millennial and Generation Z employees especially want to feel cared about at work and to believe their opinions matter. Today, as all student affairs professionals find themselves on the front lines of the mental health crisis, they need supervisors who have the skills to meet them where they are and to create a culture of belonging.

    Medlin seconded the importance of feeling heard when it comes to job satisfaction. She would ask supervisors this question: Are you a coach and mentor, or are you a boss?

    Offer job flexibility.

    Some campus jobs don’t easily lend themselves to remote work, but that doesn’t mean institutions can’t build in flexibility, which CUPA-HR found is a key retention factor.

    For example, facilities employees might take advantage of a compressed workweek, with employees having the option to work four 10-hour shifts.

    Since student affairs professionals often work outside of a typical nine-to-five day, there’s room for remote work. In fact, students might prefer to meet with student affairs professionals remotely.

    If year-round remote work isn’t a possibility, seasonal flexibility might be. When students are off campus during holiday and summer break, your staff might be able to work from home.

    See employees as a strategic asset (and pay them accordingly).

    The three areas represented by the panel — IT, facilities and student affairs — are among the most vulnerable to turnover and recruitment challenges on most campuses. How can HR lead the way in creating a culture that positions these employees as strategic assets? The panel offered these suggestions, based on their unique perspectives:

    • O’Brien encouraged satisfaction surveys. Find what’s working well and replicate it.
    • Kruger recommended streamlining job searches, posting salary ranges, and focusing on internal pay equity and livable wages.
    • Medlin asked conference attendees to help us help you. How we treat people matters, and HR leads the way in building that culture of belonging.



    Source link

  • Federal Agencies Propose Major Changes to Mental Health Parity Regulations – CUPA-HR

    Federal Agencies Propose Major Changes to Mental Health Parity Regulations – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 11, 2023

    This blog post was contributed by Elena Lynett, JD, senior vice president at Segal, a CUPA-HR Mary Ann Wersch Premier Partner.

    Institutions generally provide comprehensive mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits as part of their commitment to creating a safe and nurturing campus. However, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires that institutions providing MH/SUD benefits ensure parity in coverage between the MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury recently proposed major changes to the MHPAEA regulations for group health plan sponsors and insurers.

    The proposed changes address nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) — a term which references a wide range of medical management strategies and network administrative practices that may impact the scope or duration of MH/SUD benefits. Examples of NQTLs include prior or ongoing authorization requirements, formulary design for prescription drugs, and exclusions of specific treatments for certain conditions.

    If government agencies issue a final rule similar to the proposal, plans will face additional data collection, evaluation, compliance and administrative requirements. The most significant proposed changes are:

    • The “predominant/substantially all” testing that currently applies to financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations under MHPAEA would apply as a threshold test for any NQTL;
    • New data collection requirements, including denial rates and utilization information;
    • A new “meaningful benefits” standard for MH/SUD benefits;
    • Detailed requirements regarding the documented comparative analysis that plans must have for each applicable NQTL;
    • Introduction of a category of NQTLs related to network composition and new rules aimed at creating parity in medical/surgical and MH/SUD networks;
    • Prohibition on separate NQTLs for MH/SUD;
    • For plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a requirement that a named fiduciary would have to review and certify documented comparative analysis as complying with MHPAEA; and
    • For non-federal governmental plans, sunset of the ability to opt out of compliance with the MHPAEA rules.

    For more information on the proposed rules, see Segal’s August 1, 2023 insight.

    The deadline to comment on the proposed rules is October 17, 2023. If interested, your institution may file comments here. CUPA-HR will be filing comments with other associations representing higher education and plan sponsors. As proposed, plans could be expected to comply as early as the first day of any plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2025.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — October 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — October 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 10, 2023

    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.

    Governor Newsom Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Caste Discrimination

    California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed what would have been the first specific state ban on employment discrimination on the basis of caste. Seattle recently became the first U.S. municipality to ban caste discrimination. The California bill would have added caste to the definition of ancestry, which is already included in state law. The governor stated in his veto declaration that existing law already covers this type of discrimination. Commentators weighed in on both sides of this conclusion, some stating there is no specific case law on this question.

    Caste is defined as a system of rigid social stratification based on a person’s birth and ancestry and primarily affects people of South Asian descent. Allegations of caste discrimination have recently arisen and gained notoriety in California’s tech industry. This proposal has been subject to much controversy in California, including a hunger strike by those supporting the proposal.

    University Trustees May Be Sued for Professor’s Alleged First Amendment Claims

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) recently rejected a university board of trustees’ motion to dismiss First Amendment lawsuit allegations against them, holding that sovereign immunity did not apply to the board members (Jackson v. Wright (5th Cir., No. 22-40059, 9/15/23)).

    The case involves eight members of the University of North Texas board of regents who were sued by a music professor. The professor lost his position as editor in chief of a university music journal because of alleged “racial statements” contained in an article he published in advance of a 2020 symposium sponsored by the journal.

    In denying the sovereign immunity defense, the court concluded that the trustees had direct authority over university officials who denied the professor his First Amendment rights. The court noted that the trustees had refused to act on a letter the professor had submitted to the trustees raising the issue.

    SEIU Local 560 Files NLRB Petition to Represent the Dartmouth College Men’s Basketball Team

    To address the student-athlete employee status issue encouraged by the existing National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel, Service Employees International Union Local 560 has brought a petition to the NLRB to represent the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team in collective bargaining negotiation with the institution. This is nearly a decade after the NLRB denied jurisdiction over student athletes in the Northwestern case. If the SEIU is successful, it would be the first case involving potential unionization of college athletes.

    The filing follows on the heels of the favorable Supreme Court decision striking down the NCAA’s ban on compensation of student-athletes for name, image and likeness in the 2021 case NCAA v. Alston. While the Supreme Court did not address the labor organizing question under the National Labor Relations Act for student athletes, it certainly took the first step in recognizing the group as employees.

    This case brings an added mechanism for the NLRB to decide whether student-athletes are protected under the NLRA and able to organize into labor unions. The NLRB’s general counsel already raised the issue in May of this year in the case brought against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA, in which they are alleged to have violated the NLRA in failing to recognize student-athletes as employees.

    On the first day of the NLRB hearing, Dartmouth took the position that the athletes involved are students who do not meet any of the common law attributes of employees and, therefore, are not union-eligible employees under the NLRA.

    Undergraduate Student-Employee Union Organizing Is Expanding, Leading the Way to More Organization Drives

    Bloomberg reports that there are now over a dozen colleges in the U.S. with undergraduate student-employee unions. This is up from just two before 2022. Pay, sick leave and insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic have been reported as reasons prompting this significant increase in undergraduate employee organizing, which appears to be motivating expanded organizing at the graduate assistant and professor levels.

    A union-organizing campaign appears to be proceeding across campus lines at the California State University System, where a union is organizing as many as 20,000 undergraduate workers at 23 campuses, Bloomberg reports. Separately, 4,000 University of Oregon student employees are set to vote next month on union representation.

    Fired Football Coach Sues University, Seeks $130 Million in Damages

    A former Northwestern University football coach has sued the university and its president for wrongful discharge and defamation and is seeking a minimum of $130 million in damages. The lawsuit alleges that the coach was fired for “no reason whatsoever.”

    The coach was placed on a two-week unpaid suspension after a six-month investigation revealed incidents of hazing within the football program. The report was allegedly inconclusive as to whether the coaches were aware of the hazing. Details of the actual termination will be the subject of the trial. We will follow developments as they unfold.



    Source link