A bill recently passed by both houses of the California state legislature and now awaiting the signature of Governor Jerry Brown would, with certain limited exceptions, prohibit California employers from voluntarily allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents onsite to conduct immigration inspections or to access employee records without a warrant or court order. Supporters of the bill describe it as a means of protecting California’s immigrant workers from abuse by federal authorities and of resisting President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, which have resulted in a spike in ICE raids and allegations of rights violations. SHRM’s Lisa Nagele-Piazza has the details on the bill:
Among other things, A.B. 450 would require employers to:
- Obtain warrants and subpoenas from federal immigration agents before granting them access to nonpublic areas of the worksite or permitting them to inspect certain employee records.
- Notify workers and their labor unions about an ICE enforcement activity within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection.
- Provide each current affected employee and the employee’s authorized representative with the results of an inspection within 72 hours of receiving such information from ICE.
- Pay penalties of between $2,000 and $10,000 for violations.
Currently, employers may voluntarily comply with federal agents’ requests to access the worksite during an immigration-related investigation.
If Brown signs the bill, organizations in the state will have to train their employees not to voluntarily consent to ICE actions, among other compliance challenges.
The influx of foreign students to US universities is slowing down and many are opting to study in Canada instead, Laura Krantz reports for the Boston Globe, in a trend driven partly by perceptions of growing hostility toward immigrants in the US since the election of President Donald Trump:
At the University of Toronto, the number of foreign students who accepted admissions offers rose 21 percent over last year, especially from the United States, India, the Middle East, and Turkey. Other universities across the country also saw record increases in the last year. … The increase is not all because of Trump. Canada has made international student recruitment a national goal to spur economic growth. It now has 353,000 international students and wants 450,000 by 2022. But the political uncertainty in the United States — as well as in the United Kingdom — has given Canada’s effort an unexpected boost.
Overall, the number of international students in Canada has grown 92 percent since 2008. They now make up 1 percent of the country’s population. By comparison, the United States has about 1 million foreign students and a population ten times that of Canada. The number of foreign students in the United States has been growing for years, but last year it grew at the slowest rate since 2009.
Seeing a potential advantage over the US and UK, Canada has been making a significant push to lure international talent away from competitor countries, advertising itself as a more welcoming destination for immigrants, and expressing a full-throated defense of diversity and multiculturalism. The campaign is beginning to show results, with some tech startups and talent choosing to set up shop or look for work in Canada rather than the US.
New research released by a UK healthcare provider finds that over one third of managers would have difficulty identifying mental health problems among their staff, People Management’s Emily Burt reported on Thursday:
The report from Bupa also found that a similar proportion (30 per cent) of those with line manager duties would not know what to do if somebody in their team did have issues with mental health. … Research published this week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development revealed that people in the UK are among the most depressed in the developed world, thanks in part to job dissatisfaction. According to the data, 10 per cent of 25 to 64-year-olds in the UK are suffering from depression, ranking the UK in joint seventh place out of 25 European and Scandinavian countries.
Mental health concerns are also having a growing impact on the British workforce: A study published this month by NHS Digital showed that the number of UK employees who had taken sick leave or been put on restricted duties due to mental and behavioral health problems had increased substantially in the past two years, with these issues accounting for nearly a third of all fit notes issued since late 2014.
Last month, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced that it was putting on hold a rule proposed by the Obama administration in 2016 that would have required organizations with more than 100 employees to submit summary pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission each year showing what employees of each gender, race, and ethnicity earn. This reversal relieves employers of what opponents say are overly burdensome and costly regulations that would do nothing to address pay gaps.
For large employers in California, however, that relief may be short-lived. At the firm’s blog about California employment law, Seyfarth Shaw attorneys point to a piece of legislation that went to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk this week that would “require companies with at least 500 employees to compute differences between the wages of male and female exempt employees and board members located in California and file the report with the California Secretary of State,” which would then publish this information for public view:
If the bill is signed by Gov. Brown, beginning on July 1, 2019, and biennially thereafter, impacted employers will have to collect and compute:
- The difference between the wages of male and female exempt employees in California using both the mean and median wages in each job classification or title.
- The difference between the mean and median wages of male board members and female board members located in California.
- The number of employees used for these determinations.
This information would then be reported to the California SOS by January 1, 2020 (and biennially thereafter) on a form categorized consistent with Labor Code Section 1197.5—the California Fair Pay Act (“FPA”).
The bill, they add, does not establish that a gender wage gap in this information is a violation of the Fair Pay Act, but opponents claim it would not need to, as it “effectively forces employers to hand over to potential plaintiffs all information they might need to file a lawsuit, without any context that would explain permissible differentials.”
Since launching its new job listings feature earlier this year, Facebook has made a series of moves to position itself as a direct competitor to LinkedIn. Even if it has little chance of overtaking the Microsoft-owned professional networking site in the job search market anytime soon, the social media giant clearly sees growth potential in this field. Just in the past month, Facebook has integrated job listings into its Marketplace platform and revealed that it is testing location targeting for advertising, including potentially job ads.
Facebook’s latest move in the professional networking space entails testing a way to connect users who are looking for mentors or mentees, TechCrunch’s Ingrid Lunden reports:
Our first look at the mentoring service came from a source, who had found a couple of references to mentoring in Facebook’s code. They appear to be fragments from a set of guidelines for mentors, introducing them to the program[.] Later, we found that another person spotted an internal run of how the feature would look on the mobile app. It appears that the app matches a mentee’s interests up with those of the mentor’s, and by way of introduction, gives them a list of points they have in common, including friends, education, geographic location and — most importantly — profession[.]
Three women have filed a lawsuit against Google, their former employer, in which they accuse the tech giant of systematically discriminating against women in pay and career development, and their lawyer is seeking class action status for the claim, the Associated Press reported on Thursday:
The suit, led by lawyer James Finberg of Altshuler Berzon LLP, is on behalf of three women — Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease and Kelli Wisuri — who all quit after being put on career tracks that they claimed would pay them less than their male counterparts. The suit aims to represent thousands of Google employees in California and seeks lost wages and a slice of Google’s profits.
“I have come forward to correct a pervasive problem of gender bias at Google,” Ellis said in a statement. She says she quit Google in 2014 after male engineers with similar experience were hired to higher-paying job levels and she was denied a promotion despite excellent performance reviews. “It is time to stop ignoring these issues in tech.”
The lawsuit, which has been in the works since June, follows an investigation by the US Labor Department that claimed to find “systemic compensation disparities against women” throughout the company. Google has strongly disputed the department’s allegations, insisting that it has no gender pay gap and publishing its pay methodology in April in an effort to refute them, and a judge ruled that the company did not have to hand over all the detailed pay data the government had demanded. Nonetheless, Finberg has said the suit is based partly on the Labor Department’s analysis.
At the Harvard Business Review, Tadhg Nagle, Thomas C. Redman, and David Sammon present the findings of a study they conducted to assess the quality of data available to managers at 75 companies in Ireland. Using Redman’s Friday Afternoon Measurement method, they asked managers to collect critical data on the last 100 units of work conducted by their departments and mark them up, highlighting obvious errors and counting the number of error-free records to produce a data quality score. “Our analyses confirm,” they write, “that data is in far worse shape than most managers realize”:
- On average, 47% of newly-created data records have at least one critical (e.g., work-impacting) error. A full quarter of the scores in our sample are below 30% and half are below 57%. In today’s business world, work and data are inextricably tied to one another. No manager can claim that his area is functioning properly in the face of data quality issues. It is hard to see how businesses can survive, never mind thrive, under such conditions.
- Only 3% of the DQ scores in our study can be rated “acceptable” using the loosest-possible standard. We often ask managers (both in these classes and in consulting engagements) how good their data needs to be. While a fine-grained answer depends on their uses of the data, how much an error costs them, and other company- and department-specific considerations, none has ever thought a score less than the “high nineties” acceptable. Less than 3% in our sample meet this standard. For the vast majority, the problem is severe.
- The variation in DQ scores is enormous. Individual tallies range from 0% to 99%. Our deeper analyses (to see if, for instance, specific industries are better or worse) have yielded no meaningful insights. Thus, no sector, government agency, or department is immune to the ravages of extremely poor data quality.
The data quality challenge should sound familiar to HR leaders attempting to implement talent analytics strategies.