Tag: CUPAHR

  • EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Regulations on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Regulations on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 17, 2024

    On April 15, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its long-awaited final regulations and interpretative guidance on the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The EEOC states in its press release that the final rule is intended to offer “important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law.” It provides guidance to employers and workers “about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, and how individuals can request reasonable accommodations.” The regulations will be published in the Federal Register on April 19 and go into effect 60 days later.

    The PWFA, which was signed into law in December 2022, requires most employers with 15 or more employees “to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.” It passed Congress with strong bipartisan support.

    Known Limitations

    Under the regulation, “limitations” include both physical and mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The regulations specify that the definition of a limitation “shall be construed broadly to the maximum extent permitted by the PWFA.” A limitation “may be a modest, minor, and/or episodic impediment or problem” and can be related to current or past pregnancies, potential or intended pregnancies, and labor and childbirth.

    The examples of limitations provided in the rule include miscarriage or stillbirth, migraines, lactation, postpartum depression, and pregnancy-related episodic conditions, such as morning sickness, but the list is not intended to be exhaustive. The limitation may be “a need or a problem related to maintaining [the worker’s] health or the health of the pregnancy,” and it “need not be caused solely, originally, or substantially by pregnancy or childbirth.” Related medical conditions can include conditions that existed before pregnancy or childbirth but are exacerbated by the pregnancy or childbirth.

    The employee or their representative must communicate the limitation to the employer to receive a reasonable accommodation. The employee and employer should engage in an interactive process to determine if a worker’s limitation qualifies for a reasonable accommodation and the appropriate accommodation.

    Reasonable Accommodations

    Under the final rule, “reasonable accommodations” have the same definition as under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They include modifications or adjustments to the application process, to the work environment or how the work is performed, and that allow the employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by similarly situated employees without known limitations. It also includes modifications or adjustments to allow a covered employee to temporarily suspend one or more essential functions of the job.

    The rule provides several examples of reasonable accommodations that may be appropriate under the act. These include but are not limited to additional breaks, allowing the worker to sit while they work, temporary reassignment or suspension of certain job duties, telework, or time off to recover. Leave can be requested even if the employer does not offer leave as an employee benefit, the employee is not eligible for the employer’s leave policy, or the employee has used up their allotted leave under the employer’s policy.

    Reasonable accommodations are limited to the individual who has a PWFA-covered limitation; it does not extend to an individual who is associated with someone with a qualifying limitation or someone with a limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of someone else’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition. The regulations specifically clarify that “time for bonding or time for childcare” are not covered by the PWFA.

    Undue Hardship

    The rule explains that an employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it would cause an “undue hardship,” or a significant difficulty or expense. The rule includes a variety of factors that should be considered when determining if a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship, including the nature and net cost of the accommodation; the overall financial resources of the facility or covered entity; the type of operations of the covered entity; and the impact of the accommodation on operations, including on the ability of other employees to perform their duties or the facility’s ability to conduct business.

    The rule provides several factors to consider when analyzing whether an accommodation involving the temporary suspension of essential functions of the position qualifies as an undue hardship. These include the length of time the employee will not be able to perform the essential function; whether there is work for the employee to accomplish; the nature of the essential function; the employer’s history of providing temporary suspensions to other, similarly situated employees; whether other employees can perform the functions; and whether the essential functions can be postponed.

    Other Provisions

    The rule also encourages “early and frequent communication between employers and workers” in order “to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.” Employers are also instructed that they are not required to request supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation; they should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.

    Controversies Surrounding the Regulations

    While the PWFA was passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support, the EEOC has faced significant pushback about the implementing regulations.

    The EEOC’s delay in issuing these regulations caused considerable frustration from employers. The PWFA went into effect in June 2023, which was when employers were required to comply with the law and the EEOC began accepting claims of discrimination under the act. Without the implementing regulations, however, employers had no certainty as to how to comply, leaving them exposed to potential liability.

    The most significant criticism stemmed from the regulation’s implications around abortion. In fact, of the nearly 100,000 comments the EEOC received in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking on the regulations, over 96,000 discussed the regulation’s inclusion of abortion. The final rule clarifies that “having or choosing not to have an abortion” qualifies as a medical condition under the regulations. Several Republican members of Congress accused the EEOC of using the regulations to further the Biden administration’s pro-choice agenda. EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, however, defended the language, saying it is consistent with legal precedent and the agency’s interpretations of other civil rights statutes under their jurisdiction. The regulation clarifies that employers will not be required to pay for abortions or travel-related expenses for an employee to obtain an abortion. The EEOC specifies they expect the most likely accommodation related to abortion will be leave to attend a medical appointment or recover from a procedure. Several conservative organizations are threatening legal action against the final rule.

    Litigation Challenging the PWFA

    On February 27, 2024, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the House of Representatives lacked a quorum when it passed the PWFA, because over 200 representatives voted by proxy. The Constitution required that a quorum be present for the House to conduct business, but in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the House allowed for proxy voting. The court found Congress violated the Constitution when it passed the law and blocked enforcement of the act against the state of Texas and its agencies. The law is in effect elsewhere in the United States, but other legal challenges may follow Texas’s approach.



    Source link

  • Embracing the Future of HR: Your AI Questions Answered – CUPA-HR

    Embracing the Future of HR: Your AI Questions Answered – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | April 16, 2024

    In his recent webinar for CUPA-HR, Rahul Thadani, senior executive director of HR information systems at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, answered some of the most frequently raised questions about AI in HR. He also spoke to the most prevalent worries, including concerns about data privacy and whether AI will compete with humans for jobs.

    In addition to covering the basics on AI and how it works, Thadani addressed questions about the risks and rewards of using AI in HR, including:

    • How can AI speed up productivity now?
    • What AI tools should HR be using?
    • How well is AI integrated into enterprise software?
    • What are the risks and downsides of using AI?
    • What role will AI play in the future of HR?

    Thadani also put to rest a common fear about AI: that it will replace human jobs. He believes that HR is too complex, too fundamentally human a role to be automated. AI only simulates human intelligence, but it can’t make human decisions. Thadani reminded HR pros, “you all know how complex humans are, how complex decision-making is for humans.” AI can’t understand “the many components that go into hiring somebody,” for example, or how to measure employee engagement.

    AI won’t replace skilled HR professionals, but HR can’t afford to ignore AI. Thadani and other AI leaders stress that HR has a critical role to play in how AI is used on campuses. As the people experts, HR must have a seat at the table in AI discussions, partnering with IT and leadership on decisions such as how employees’ data are used and which AI software to test and purchase.

    Take the First Step

    Most people are just getting started on their AI journey. As a first step for those new to AI, Thadani recommends signing up for a ChatGPT account or another chatbot, like Google’s Gemini. He suggests using your private email account in case you need to sign a privacy agreement that doesn’t align with your institution’s policies. Test out what these chatbots are capable of by using this quick guide to chatbots.

    For leaders and supervisors, Thadani proposes having ongoing conversations within your department, on your campus and with your leadership. Some questions to consider in these conversations: Does your campus have an AI governance council? If so, is HR taking part? Do you have internal AI guidelines in place to protect data and privacy, in your department or for your campus? If not, do you have a plan to develop them? (As a leader in the AI space, the University of Michigan has AI guidelines that provide a good model, and are broken down into staff, faculty and student guidance categories.) Have you identified thought leaders in AI in your office or on your campus who can spur discussions and recommend best practices?

    In HR, “there’s definitely an eagerness to be ready and be ahead of the curve” when it comes to AI, Thadani noted. AI will undoubtedly be central to the future of work, and it’s up to HR to proactively guide how AI can be leveraged in ethical and responsible ways.

    HR-Specific Resources on AI



    Source link

  • White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2024

    On April 10, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the Department of Education’s (ED) final rule to amend Title IX. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect the ED will issue the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as ED publishes the final rule.

    The ED released the text of the proposed rule on June 23, 2022, though the Federal Register did not officially publish the proposal until several weeks later on July 12, 2022. The agency received over 240,000 comments in response, including CUPA-HR comments seeking clarification on the overlaps between the ED’s proposal with institutions’ existing obligations to address employment discrimination. CUPA-HR also joined comments led by the American Council on Education.

    The Federal Government’s Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda had set the target release date of the final rule for May 2023, but the Department had to further delay that timeline to review all comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and address them in the final rule. Most recently, the ED indicated a March 2024 release of the final rule in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

    CUPA-HR plans to hold a timely webinar on the final rule after publication. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the Title IX final rule, including completion of the review and publication of the rule.



    Source link

  • White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 11, 2024

    On April 11, 2024, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime pay rule. The rule is expected to increase the minimum salary threshold for the executive, administrative and professional (EAP or white collar) employee exemptions to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect DOL will release the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as the final rule is released.

    On April 4, 2024, CUPA-HR’s president and CEO, government relations team and board members met with officials from DOL and OIRA to express our concerns with the September 2023 proposed rule. The proposal sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. DOL also proposed increasing the salary threshold automatically every three years to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers. Finally, DOL proposed that all employers would need to implement these changes within 60 days of the final rule’s release.

    During our OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR reiterated the concerns that were addressed in our comments submitted in November 2023. The comments made the following four recommendations for DOL to consider prior to issuing a final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. If DOL implements an increase, it should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
    3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
    4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.

    We expect lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of all updates related to the overtime regulations. Once the new regulations are released, we will plan and share registration information for a webinar. We will also provide an update for members who attend the spring conference in Minneapolis next week.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — April 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 9, 2024

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

    Dartmouth Refuses to Bargain With Men’s Basketball Team Union

    As the next chapter in the Dartmouth College men’s basketball players union dispute, Dartmouth has refused to bargain with the union elected to represent the players. The men’s basketball team voted 13-2, in a National Labor Relations Board-supervised election, to be represented in collective bargaining negotiations by the Service Employees International Union Local 560. The election was conducted after the NLRB regional director ruled that the student-athletes were employees under the National Labor Relations Act and therefore were entitled to an NLRB-supervised election as to whether they wanted a union to represent them. Dartmouth stated, “While we continue to negotiate in good faith with multiple unions representing Dartmouth employees, our responsibility to future generations of students means we must explore all our legal options for challenging the regional director’s legal error.”

    This action will likely lead to the NLRB filing unfair labor practice charges against Dartmouth. Dartmouth can defend on the grounds that the student-athletes do not meet the NLRA definition of employees. If the NLRB again rejects this argument, the case will be reviewable by a federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over this matter.

    Tufts Professors Charge That Fundraising Part of Their Salary Violates Their Tenure Contract

    A state of Massachusetts appellate court ruled that tenured faculty at Tufts University School of Medicine must pursue more discovery concerning their claim that the university’s requirement that they fundraise to pay for a significant part of their salary violates their tenure contract (Wortis v. Trustees of Tufts College (Mass., No. SJC-13472, 3/14/24)). The medical school professors claim that the fundraising requirement violates their contractual rights to academic freedom and to economic security.

    The allegations include the college nearly halving the salary and lab space of some of the professors who did not meet the fundraising requirement. The court sided with the college on the professors’ lab space claim, concluding that altering lab space did not threaten a professor’s economic security. The court concluded, however, that tenure is “permanent and continuous” once granted, and it would seem a “hollow promise” without a salary commitment of strong protections. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the tenure documents are ambiguous on “economic security” and more discovery is necessary to flush out the meaning of the tenure documents as they pertain to the college’s significant reductions of salary and full-time status alleged here.

    University Baseball Coach’s Reverse-Discrimination Claim Dismissed, But Retaliation Claim Proceeds to Jury Trial

    A White baseball coach’s reverse-discrimination claim against St. Edward’s University was dismissed. The coach claimed that he was fired after two separate investigations concluded that he did not discriminate against two Black baseball players. However, the federal trial court judge ruled that his retaliation claim that he was discharged because he complained about reverse discrimination should proceed to trial (Penders v. St. Edward’s University (2024 BL 90254, W.D. Tex., No. 1-22-CV-178 – DAE, 3/18/24)).

    While the investigations were ongoing, the university reviewed a tape submitted by one of the complaining players which evidenced the coach cursing at the player. While the university concluded that incident did not involve discrimination by the coach, it told the coach that his values were not in line with the school’s values and that he would be terminated at the end of the season.

    The coach alleged that the decision to terminate him at the end of the season was illegal and demanded another meeting with his lawyer present. The university allegedly responded a couple of hours later terminating the coach immediately. The judge ruled that the coach’s claim that his termination was “illegal” was protected activity and a jury could conclude that the termination, in close proximity to his protected activity, was an unlawful retaliation against the coach for raising his legal claim.

    School Board Prevails in Race Discrimination and Defamation Lawsuit Brought by Former Track Coach

    Maryland’s Anne Arundel County school board won summary judgement, after a judge dismissed a discrimination case brought by a former track and cross-country coach who was fired after a verbal and physical altercation with a student. The federal court dismissed the coach’s discrimination claims after review of the incident, which was recorded on video, concluding that the plaintiff exercised poor judgement in his actions, which violated school policy, and presented no evidence of discrimination or more favorable treatment of comparators (Daniels v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel County (2024 BL 77797, D. Md. No. 1:22-cv-03057, 3/8/24)).

    The federal court judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument that his conduct was justified because he also served as a substitute school security officer, concluding that his actions still violated school policy. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation claims, holding that the school board’s statements to a local news blog, including that the plaintiff had been suspended while an investigation was taking place, were not false.

    Several States Pass Ban on Anti-Union Captive-Audience Meetings — Employer DEI Training Is a Target in Conservative-Leaning States

    Five states have passed employer bans on anti-union captive-audience speeches (New York, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota) and such legislation has been introduced in nine additional states (California, Washington, Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island). Business groups in Minnesota and Connecticut have initiated litigation challenging these state bans.

    As a federal matter, the NLRB has not ruled that such captive-audience meetings violate the NLRA. However, the NLRB’s general counsel has taken the position publicly that such captive-audience meetings violate employees’ federal labor rights.

    At the same time, conservative-leaning states such as Florida have enacted restrictions on employer diversity, equity and inclusion training. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia) has struck down part of the Florida DEI restriction on First Amendment grounds. Separately, about six states, according to Bloomberg, require anti-discrimination training, including sex harassment training, as a matter distinct from DEI training. It is important to keep up with these matters according to the latest developments in the individual states in which your institution is operating.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Participates in OIRA Meeting on FLSA Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Participates in OIRA Meeting on FLSA Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 9, 2024

    On April 4, CUPA-HR’s government relations team, President and CEO Andy Brantley, and four national board members met with officials at the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to discuss the upcoming overtime regulations to increase the minimum salary threshold. During the call, the group expressed CUPA-HR’s broad concerns with the rule, as well as the specific challenges implementation of the new rule could create for different types of institutions in various areas of the country.

    On March 1, DOL sent the final rule to update the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations to OIRA for review. As previously noted, the OIRA review marks one of the last steps required before DOL can publish the final rule for public viewing. While the rule is at OIRA, the text and details of the final rule are not public, but interested stakeholders are able to request meetings with the administrator to discuss the proposed changes.

    During the meeting, Andy Brantley and Bailey Graves from the CUPA-HR government relations team reiterated the concerns that were addressed in CUPA-HR’s comments submitted in November 2023. The comments made the following four recommendations for DOL to consider prior to issuing a final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. DOL should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
    3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
    4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.

    Brantley and Graves were joined by CUPA-HR Board Chair Jami Painter, Chair-Elect Robyn Salvo, and board members El pagnier Hudson and Kristi Yowell, who discussed the impact of these potential changes on employee exempt/nonexempt status and employee morale and benefits. They also discussed the impact of the rule on higher education’s efforts to offer competitive wages to employees, the difficulties of having employees in areas with different costs of living, and the impact this rule could have on an institution’s ability to provide student services.

    Looking Forward

    It is unknown when the final rule will clear OIRA review and be published for public viewing. OIRA review typically lasts 30-60 days, and OIRA meetings are currently set through April 11. However, the Biden administration has incentive to move quickly to publish the final rule in order to avoid the rule being overturned via legislation if Republicans win Congress and the White House in the November election.

    The final rule will also likely face legal action once it is published, which could delay the effective date or stop the rule from going into effect in its entirety. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of when the final rule clears OIRA review and is published, as well as any legal challenges that may arise.



    Source link

  • OSHA Issues Worker Walkaround Rule – CUPA-HR

    OSHA Issues Worker Walkaround Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 4, 2024

    On April 1, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a final rule on the Worker Walkaround Representative Designation Process. The rule allows third-party representatives to accompany OSHA inspectors during physical workplace inspections.

    Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and existing regulations to implement the law, employer representatives and authorized representatives of employees are allowed the opportunity to accompany OSHA inspectors during workplace inspections. The existing regulations state that authorized representatives of the employee are limited to employees of the employer, though OSHA inspectors may allow accompaniment by a third party that is not an employee if it is “reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection.”

    The new rule broadens the category of who may serve as an authorized representative of the employee by explicitly including third parties as potential authorized representatives. The rule clarifies that third-party employee representatives may accompany the OSHA inspector when “good cause has been shown why accompaniment by a third party is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace (including but not limited to because of their relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions in the workplace or similar workplaces, or language or communication skills).” This new language makes it easier for non-employees, such as union officials, to potentially be involved in the inspection process.

    The final rule largely mirrors the proposed rule that was published in October 2023. Nearly 11,000 comments were submitted in response to the proposal, and employers across several industries have expressed concern with the rule, including concerns with the lack of mechanisms for employers to object to the selection of non-employee third-party representatives. Additionally, employers were concerned about the increased liability that they could face from non-employees walking around their worksite and the possible costs of providing personal protective equipment to non-employee third-party representatives when needed for inspections.

    The rule goes into effect on May 31, 2024, but it is expected to face legal challenges that could delay the effective date. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the status of this rule.

     



    Source link

  • Senators Introduce Bill to Implement 32-Hour Workweek – CUPA-HR

    Senators Introduce Bill to Implement 32-Hour Workweek – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 3, 2024

    On March 14, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Laphonza Butler (D-CA) introduced the Thirty-Two-Hour Workweek Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours, while also providing that workers do not lose pay as a result of the reduced hours. A nearly identical bill was introduced in the House earlier this Congress.

    According to the Senate version of the bill, the FLSA would be amended to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by requiring overtime payment for any work done in excess of 32 hours in a given week. The bill includes a new requirement to provide overtime pay at the standard rate of one-and-a-half times the regular rate for any workday that is longer than eight hours but shorter than 12 hours, and it requires employers to pay an overtime rate of double the regular rate for any workday longer than 12 hours. The bill also stipulates that employers subject to the shortened workweek requirements may not reduce the total workweek compensation or any other benefit of an employee due to the employee being brought into the purview of the legislation. The 32-hour workweek would be phased in over a four-year period.

    The same day the bill text was introduced, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on the need for a 32-hour workweek. Senator Sanders serves as the chairperson of the committee and led the Democrats’ arguments for shortening the workweek without reducing pay. He argued that new technology has increased the productivity of American workers, therefore decreasing the need for a 40-hour workweek as was enacted in the FLSA over 80 years ago. Republicans, on the other hand, argued that shortening the workweek without decreasing pay would hurt small businesses and would result in increased prices for goods and services and more automated jobs. They argued against a law mandating the 32-hour workweek and preferred flexibility for employers to choose to make that change if appropriate for their business operations.

    Given the partisan divide shown during the hearing, the bill is unlikely to move in the Senate anytime soon. Even if the bill passed out of the HELP Committee, it appears unlikely that it will garner the 60 votes necessary to bypass the filibuster if brought to the floor for a vote. The House version of the bill faces a similar fate, as the House Republicans currently have the majority. With the upcoming election in November, it will be interesting to see if power shifts in favor of Democrats in either chamber, which will likely be the only way the bill could pass in the House or Senate.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates as it relates to this legislation and future policy related to a shortened workweek.



    Source link

  • Three Essential AI Tools and Practical Tips for Automating HR Tasks – CUPA-HR

    Three Essential AI Tools and Practical Tips for Automating HR Tasks – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | March 27, 2024

    During his recent keynote at CUPA-HR’s Higher Ed HR Accelerator, Commissioner Keith Sonderling of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission observed, “now, AI exists in HR in every single stage of employment,” from writing job descriptions, to sourcing candidates and scheduling interviews, and well into the career lifecycle of employees.

    At some colleges and universities, AI is now a routine part of the HR workflow. At the University of North Texas at Dallas, for example, AI has significantly sped up the recruitment and hiring timeline. “It helped me staff a unit in an aggressive time frame,” says Tony Sanchez, chief human resources officer, who stresses that they use AI software with privacy protections. “AI parsed resumes, prescreened applicants, and allowed scheduling directly to the hiring manager’s calendar.”

    Even as AI literacy is becoming a critical skill, many institutions of higher education have not yet adopted AI as a part of their daily operations. But even if you don’t have your own custom AI like The University of Michigan, free AI tools can still be a powerful daily assistant. With some common-sense guardrails in place, AI can help you automate repetitive tasks, make software like Excel easier to use, analyze information and polish your writing.

    Three Free Chatbots to Use Now

    AI development is moving at a breakneck pace, which means that even the freely available tools below are more useful than they were just a few months ago. Try experimenting with multiple AI chatbots by having different browser windows open and asking each chatbot to do the same task. Just don’t pick a favorite yet. With AI companies constantly trying to outperform each other, one might work better depending on the day or the task. And before you start, be sure to read the section on AI guardrails below — you never want to input proprietary or private information into a public chatbot.

    ChatGPT, the AI trailblazer. The free version allows unlimited chats after signing up for an account. Right now, ChatGPT is text-based, which means it can help you with emails and communications, or even draft longer materials like reports. It can also solve math problems and answer questions (but beware of fabricated answers).

    You can customize ChatGPT to make it work better for you by clicking on your username in the bottom lefthand corner. For example, you can tell it that you’re an HR professional working in higher education, and it will tailor its responses to what it knows about your job.

    Google’s powerful AI chatbot, Gemini (formerly known as Bard). You’ll need to have or sign up for a free Google account, and it’s well worth it. Gemini can understand and interact with text just like ChatGPT does, but it’s also multimodal. You can drag and drop images and it will be able to interpret them. Gemini can also make tables, which can be exported to Google Sheets. And it generates images for free. For example, if you have an image you want your marketing team to design, you can get started by asking Gemini to create what you have in mind. But for now, Gemini won’t create images of people.

    Claude, often considered the best AI writer. Take Claude for a spin by asking it to write a job description or memo for you. Be warned that the free version of Claude has a daily usage limit, and you won’t know you’ve hit it until you hit it. According to Claude, your daily limit depends on demand, and your quota resets every morning.

    These free AI tools aren’t as powerful as their paid counterparts — all about $20 per month — but they do offer a sense of what AI can do.

    Practical Tips for Using AI in HR 

    For a recent Higher Ed HR Magazine article, I asked higher education HR professionals how they used AI to increase efficiency. Rhonda Beassie, associate vice president for people and procurement operations at Sam Houston State University, shared that she and her team are using AI for both increased productivity and upskilling, such as:

    • Creating first drafts of and benchmarking job descriptions.
    • Making flyers, announcements and other employee communications.
    • Designing training presentations, including images, text, flow and timing.
    • Training employees for deeper use of common software applications.
    • Providing instructions on developing and troubleshooting questions for macros and VLOOKUP in Microsoft Excel.
    • Troubleshooting software. Beassie noted that employees “can simply say to the AI, ‘I received an error message of X. How do I need to change the script to correct this?’ and options are provided.”
    • Creating reports pulled from their enterprise system.

    AI chatbots are also great at:

    • Being a thought partner. Ask a chatbot to help you respond to a tricky email, to find the flaws in your argument or to point out things you’ve missed in a piece of writing.
    • Revising the tone, formality or length of writing. You can ask chatbots to make something more or less formal or friendly (or whatever tone you’re trying to strike), remove the jargon from a piece of writing, or lengthen or shorten something.
    • Summarizing webpages, articles or book chapters. You can cut and paste a URL into a chatbot and ask it to summarize the page for you. You can also cut and paste a fairly large amount of text into chatbots and ask it for a summary. Try using parameters, such as “Summarize this into one sentence,” or “Please give me a bulleted list of the main takeaways.” The summaries aren’t always perfect, but will usually do in a pinch.
    • Summarizing YouTube videos. (Currently, the only free tool that can do this is Gemini.) Just cut and paste in the URL and ask it to summarize a video for you. Likewise, these summaries aren’t always exactly accurate.
    • Writing in your voice. Ask a chatbot to learn your voice and style by entering in things you’ve written. Ask it to compose a communication, like a memo or email you need to write, in your voice. This takes some time up front to train the AI, and it may not remember your voice from day-to-day or task-to-task.

    Practice Your Prompts

    Just 10 minutes a day can take you far in getting comfortable with these tools if you’re new to them. Learning prompting, which may take an upfront investment of more time, can unlock powerful capabilities in AI tools. The more complex the task you ask AI to do, the more time you need to spend crafting a prompt.

    The best prompts will ask a chatbot to assume a role and perform an action, using specific context. For example, “You are a human resources professional at a small, liberal arts college. You are writing a job description for an HR generalist. The position’s responsibilities include leading safety and compliance training; assisting with payroll; conducting background checks; troubleshooting employee questions in person and virtually. The qualifications for the job are one to two years in an HR office, preferably in higher education, and a BA.”

    Anthropic has provided a very helpful prompt library for Claude, which will also work with most AI chatbots.

    AI Guardrails

    There are real risks to using AI, especially the free tools listed above. You can read about them in detail here, or even ask AI to tell you, but the major dangers are:

    • Freely available AI will not protect your data privacy. Unless you have internal or enterprise software with a privacy agreement at your institution, assume everything you share with AI is public. Protected or confidential information should not be entered into a prompt.
    • AI fabricates, or hallucinates, as it’s sometimes called. It will make up facts that sound deceptively plausible. If you need accurate information, it’s best to consult an expert or trusted sources.
    • You don’t own copyright on AI-created work. In the United States, only human-produced work can be copyrighted.
    • Most of these tools are trained only up to a certain date, often a year or more ago for free chatbots. If you need up-to-the-minute information, use your favorite web browser.

    Further AI Resources



    Source link

  • Higher Education Pay Increases in 2023 Exceeded Inflation for the First Time Since the Pandemic – CUPA-HR

    Higher Education Pay Increases in 2023 Exceeded Inflation for the First Time Since the Pandemic – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 27, 2024

    New research from CUPA-HR has found that median pay increases for most higher education employees in 2023-24 continued the upward trend seen last year (and exceeded the inflation rate for the first time since 2019-20). However, the findings also show that most higher ed employees are still being paid less than they were in 2019-20 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

    The largest gap between pre-pandemic inflation-adjusted salaries and current salaries is for tenure-track faculty (earning 9.7% less), followed by non-tenure-track teaching faculty (earning 8.2% less). The smallest gap is for staff (earning only 0.3% less).

    Other key findings from an analysis of CUPA-HR’s higher ed workforce salary survey data from 2016-17 to 2023-24 include:

    • Non-tenure-track teaching faculty received their highest raise in the past eight years.
    • Staff (generally non-exempt employees) received the highest increase in pay in comparison to other employee types. This was true last year as well.
    • Tenure-track faculty continued to receive the lowest pay increases (and were the only group of employees whose raise did not surpass inflation).

    Across higher ed, employees are still being paid less than they were in 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) in inflation-adjusted dollars. Tenure-track faculty are the group with the largest gap between median salaries in 2019-20 adjusted to 2023-24 dollars and actual median salaries in 2023-24, earning 9.7% less. This is followed by non-tenure-track teaching faculty (earning 8.2% less). The smallest gap is for staff (earning only 0.3% less).

    High inflation has only exacerbated the gaps in pay increases faculty (particularly tenure-track faculty) experience in relation to other higher ed employees. Further, even though most higher ed employee groups received raises that beat inflation in 2023-24, these raises did not reverse the erosion of higher ed employee purchasing power that has been occurring since 2019-20.

    Explore this data and more in CUPA-HR’s newest interactive graphic.

    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