The job search website CareerBuilder has rolled out a new mobile app that uses artificial intelligence and augmented reality to help job seekers apply and employers find candidates more quickly and easily, VentureBeat reported last week:
The mobile app has some attention-grabbing features. It can build your resume, apply to jobs on your behalf, and show augmented reality views of job openings at the businesses you walk by. It also helps you develop the skills needed for a better-paying job.
And for [employers], the mobile app shows the real-time supply and demand trends for talent you need. It instantly builds your job descriptions, automatically matches your job openings to candidates who are more likely to respond, and runs campaigns to engage them.
CareerBuilder’s mobile app is the latest in a series of new technological innovations search engines and job boards have unveiled in the past year to simplify and streamline the job search process and to provide prospective applicants with additional information about organizations and roles. Google’s built-in job search function was launched in the US last year and has since expanded to India, Canada, and the UK. The search giant has also developed new tools for recruiters, including an AI-powered candidate discovery feature and its Cloud Talent Solution product, which it made publicly available last month. Facebook has also added a dedicated job search functionality, which it has rolled out in 40 countries. The Japanese HR conglomerate Recruit Holdings, which owns Indeed, made a deal to acquire Glassdoor earlier this year.
The US made no progress toward closing the gender pay gap between 2016 and 2017, with the ratio between women’s and men’s average earnings stalling at 80.5 cents to the dollar and the gaps between women of color and white men actually widening, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research reported last week:
If current trends continue, women will not receive equal pay until 2059, according to a related IWPR analysis of trends in earnings since 1960. This projection for equal pay remains unchanged for the last two years, indicating that the rate of progress has stalled.
Women of all major racial and ethnic groups saw the wage gap with White men widen in 2017, with especially large gaps facing Black and Hispanic women. Hispanic women made just 53 cents for every dollar earned by a White man (down from 54.4 cents in 2016) and Black women made just 60.8 cents (down from 62.5 cents in 2016). At $32,002 per year of full-time work, median earnings for Hispanic women are below the qualifying income threshold for eligibility for food stamps for a family of four.
“Closing the wage gap is not a zero-sum game—gains for one gender do not require losses for the other,” the IWPR points out in a fact sheet on the pay gap. While the gender gap has narrowed over the past several decades, wage stagnation in the US is an ongoing concern for men and women alike:
The Future of Jobs 2018, a new report from the World Economic Forum, includes the organization’s latest forecast of how automation will reshape the future of work. As soon as 2025, the report predicts, more than half of “all current workplace tasks” will be performed by machines, up from 29 percent today. That doesn’t mean the world is facing the mass displacement of human workers by machines: The report predicts that automation will create 133 million new jobs by 2022 even as it destroys 75 million. It does mean, however, that employers and governments need to be proactive in readying the workforce to perform the higher-skill jobs AI, robotics, and other emerging technologies will create, according to a statement from the WEF:
Based on a survey of chief human resources officers and top strategy executives from companies across 12 industries and 20 developed and emerging economies (which collectively account for 70% of global GDP), the report finds that 54% of employees of large companies would need significant re- and up-skilling in order to fully harness the growth opportunities offered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. At the same time, just over half of the companies surveyed said they planned to reskill only those employees that are in key roles while only one third planned to reskill at-risk workers.
While nearly 50% of all companies expect their full-time workforce to shrink by 2022 as a result of automation, almost 40% expect to extend their workforce generally and more than a quarter expect automation to create new roles in their enterprise.
The WEF reached its headline figures by extrapolating from the companies it surveyed, where executives predicted a decline of 984,000 jobs and a gain of 1.74 million jobs between now and 2022. The report also finds that all industries are facing significant skills gaps, with regard to both technical skills and “distinctly human skills, such as creativity, critical thinking and persuasion.” Reskilling and upskilling the workforce for this change is “the key challenge of our time,” WEF Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab said in the statement.
Microsoft is planning a new, $570 million Canadian headquarters in Toronto, GeekWire reported last week, becoming the latest in a series of major US tech companies to announce large-scale investments in Canada:
The Redmond, Wash., software giant announced plans to build a massive new Canadian headquarters in Toronto, promising to invest $570 million in the facility. Microsoft expects to move into the new facility, located at 81 Bay Street, in Sept. 2020. The company will relocate its current Canadian headquarters and several other offices, dispersed through the country, to the new headquarters.
Toronto is having a bit of a moment on the global tech stage. Google sister company Sidewalk Labs is developing a plan to create an innovation district on the Toronto waterfront as a proof-of-concept for technologists who believe they can improve urban planning. Google plans to relocate its Canadian headquarters to Toronto as part of that initiative.
The very next day, Uber also revealed plans for a new Toronto office, announcing that it would spend around $154 million to build a new engineering hub there, doubling its Toronto-based tech workforce to around 500 employees. The ride-sharing startup will also be expanding its self-driving car operations there. These latest moves will further boost Toronto’s profile as one of Canada’s leading tech hubs, particularly for emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Major tech companies have been investing in Canada at a steady clip over the past year, also including Salesforce, Alphabet’s DeepMind unit, and Facebook. Toronto is also the only non-US finalist for Amazon’s second North American headquarters.
A recent court ruling has added to the small but growing pile of jurisprudence at the intersection of marijuana legalization and labor law. In a decision handed down on September 5, a federal court in Connecticut found that Bride Brook, a federal contractor, had run afoul of that state’s Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA) by rescinding a job offer to Katelin Noffsinger, a medical marijuana user, after she tested positive on a pre-employment drug test. The court granted summary judgment to Noffsinger but declined to award her attorney fees or punitive damages, Jackson Lewis attorney Kathryn J. Russo explains:
Bride Brook argued that its refusal to hire Noffsinger is allowed by an exception to PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision (when “required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding”). It argued that the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA) barred it from hiring Noffsinger because that law prohibits federal contractors from allowing employees to use illegal drugs. Marijuana is illegal under federal law. The court rejected Bride Brook’s argument, noting that the DFWA does not require drug testing and does not regulate employees who use illegal drugs outside of work while off-duty. …
Bride Brook also argued that it did not violate PUMA because it did not discriminate against Noffsinger based on her status as a medical marijuana user; rather, it had relied on the positive drug test result. The court dismissed this argument, concluding that acceptance would render a medical marijuana user’s protection under the statute a nullity.
While possession and sale of the drug remain illegal under federal law, as more states relax their prohibitions on either medical or recreational marijuana, this has created legal conundrums for employers, who must rethink their zero-tolerance drug policies lest they end up in the same situation as Bride Brook.
The holiday hiring season is already in full swing in the US and the number of seasonal workers hired this year is expected to grow, according to a new forecast from Challenger, Gray & Christmas, citing year-to-year trends and announcements retailers have already made this year:
Last year, seasonal retail employment increased by 668,400 during the final three months of the year, 4.3 percent higher than the 641,000 jobs added in 2016, according to employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). … Last year, BLS data showed that transportation and warehousing employment increased by a non-seasonally adjusted 279,700, up 13.4 percent from the 246,700 workers in the final quarter of 2016 and 6.6 percent higher than the 262,300 workers hired in this sector in the final three months of 2015.
Companies in this sector are averaging 5.2 million workers this year, compared to 4.9 million in 2015 and 4.2 million in 2008, according to non-seasonally adjusted BLS data.
Challenger points to several companies that have announced they will hire as many holiday season employees as last year or more: Macy’s announced this week that it planned to hire 80,000 seasonal workers, as many as it planned to at the start of the 2017 season (it ultimately hired 87,000 last year). FedEx announced plans for 55,000 holiday hires, a 10 percent increase over last year’s number, and said it would also increase hours for some current employees. The big-box retailer Target, meanwhile, said on Thursday that it would hire around 120,000 seasonal workers for the holidays, 20 percent more than last year, while also raising starting pay by $1 per hour, the Star-Tribune reported:
The US National Labor Relations Board announced on Thursday that it would publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register today proposing a new version of the rule governing joint employer liability under the National Labor Relations Act:
Under the proposed rule, an employer may be found to be a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. Indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority would no longer be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.
As explained in the Notice, rulemaking in this important area of the law would foster predictability, consistency and stability in the determination of joint-employer status. The proposed rule reflects the Board majority’s initial view, subject to potential revision in response to public comments, that the National Labor Relations Act’s intent is best supported by a joint-employer doctrine that does not draw third parties, who have not played an active role in deciding wages, benefits, or other essential terms and conditions of employment, into a collective-bargaining relationship for another employer’s employees.
Since regaining a Republican majority under President Donald Trump, the NLRB has sought to overturn a decision made during the Obama administration in 2015 that defined “joint employer” to include entities with which a business has indirect control, or a “horizontal” relationship, making them responsible for franchisees’ or contractors’ compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and other employee protection laws. Previously, organizations were only considered joint employers in the case of a “vertical” relationship, wherein an organization exerted direct control over its subordinate entity’s employees or the terms of their employment. Critics of the expanded definition say it creates too much uncertainty for businesses involved in subcontracting and franchise relationships about their employment liability.