Tim's Talking About New EEOC Policies Against High School Diploma Requirements, A Ban on the Crime Box and Joblessness Discrimination

MUST READING... IF YOUR COMPANY REQUIRES A HIGH SCHOOL/GED THE EEOC MAY HAVE YOU IN IT'S SIGHTS.

Last December an EEOC attorney created some controversy via a "informal" policy communication that indicated the EEOC folks take exception to those employers that require a high school diploma or G.E.D.  for employment if it is not related to a specific job.

Specifically, EEOC attorney Aaron Konopasky wrote, "If an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement "screens out" an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA's definition of "disability," the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity.

The employer will not be able to make this showing for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma."

Though unofficial, this statement created quite a stir requiring the EEOC to clarify its position. At the present, employers still have the option of requiring employees to be high school graduates. 

"However, the employer may have to allow someone who says that a disability has prevented him from obtaining a high school diploma to demonstrate qualifications for the job in some other way," according to the agency.

The EEOC has posed a "series of questions and answers" on its website to help you better understand this issue.

OHIO BAN THE BOX EFFORT PICKS UP STEAM

"Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" will soon be one less question facing state job applications according to the Columbus Dispatch. The state will still conduct criminal background checks on applicants but only based on qualifications.

Nearly 1.9 million Ohioans have a crime on their record that causes them problems when looking for a job even though they have "paid their dues".

In addition to the application issue, the Kasich administration plans to review 800 other sanctions that are part of laws that restrict those with criminal records from participation. 

Such restrictions include for example not being able to get a barber license, become a plumber, work in a casino or be a cemetery  security guard.

To find out about these kind of sanctions a database that has been created by the State.

ASA INDEX UP!

The ASA staffing index is up 4.2% from February 2011. The index is at 87. Staffing employment has grown 15.8% since the start of 2012.

Those that follow this column know that historically a rise in the use of temps coming out of a recession is a bullish sign for the economy. Check out these large national temp help firms stock prices year to date for confirmation....

Company                               1-3-12      2-23-12   YTD INC.

                                                 Price         Price

Manpower (MAN)               $37.01      $44.64     20.6%

Kelly Serv(KELYA)             $14.18      $15.78     11.3%

Randstad (RANJY)              $15.86      $18.54     16.9%

Adecco (AHELY)                 $22.12      $25.19     13.9%

YOU MUST BE KIDDING...MOVE IS ON TO BAN JOBLESS BIAS!

A movement is underway to ban jobless discrimination. Legislators of shapes and sizes have become angry with companies that refuse to consider applicants that have been out of work for their openings. It is illegal in New Jersey to use language in ads that discriminate against unemployed people. The Florida legislature has similar legislation pending. And of course President Obama has tried to attach the same to his latest jobs bill.

What's wrong with this you say? Have you ever had that person apply for work that has deliberately taken every possible step to not get the job? Picture the person that comes in wearing sleeveless cutoff sweatshirt with tatoo's out the ying- yang, pierced nose ring, spiked Mohawk, pants falling off and greets you by calling you a dude. Your local biker bar wouldn't hire this person, but if he/she has been out of work for a year and you don't pull the trigger you will be in trouble.

Only in America....and certainly not with government hires huh?

Bruce Springsteen winners are Born to Run to tickets, CDs

It was not surprising to most that Springsteen's Born To Run was the number one fan favorite for those that participated in our Boss survey.

Congratulations goes out to Karen Biscell of Exal Corporation in Youngstown. She is the lucky winner of a pair of tickets to see Bruce rock the Q on April 17th in Cleveland. Five other fans will receive a copy of the recently released Springsteen CD "Wrecking Ball".

We also gave Springsteen CDs to the following readers:

• Ray Sbardella, Safety Manager at  McCann Plastics
• Diane Riley, Office Manager at Ohio Rack
• Lea Papiernik, H R Manager at VinylTech
• Pam Kochman, Corporate HR at Radix-Wire
• Jane Heim, HR at Parker

This month we have decided to take a break from the our concert tour series and move back to that time honored tradition of Opening Day at the old ballpark....Indians style. 

We have a pair of tickets to each of the Cleveland Indians games for their opening series against the Toronto Blue Jays on April 5th, April 7th and April 8th at Progressive Field.

To be entered in the drawing simply click on our Favorite Tribe Player survey and cast your vote for your favorite all-time Cleveland Indian....this is a tough one. Click here to enter.

Good Luck!

Tip of the Month: Hold Harmless Agreements...Who Benefits?

Often times we have clients that ask us to agree to indemnification agreements or what use to be referred to as "hold harmless" agreements.

These type of agreements typically require one party (the supplier) to assume liability for a bad outcome even if the responsibility is not theirs.  The end result is that the party that caused the liability may not be the one that pays for it.

It is understandable why the client company would want such a sweet deal. It reduces risk on their part but is it fair?

Consider the risk your supplier is already taking when it puts its employees to work at your facility. The biggest is the safety and well being of that individual to make it back home every day in one piece...i.e. workers compensation. In a situation where the temp is severely injured because of a negligent act of the client the supplier is on the hook for the workers compensation claim and potentially the cost of defending the client and paying damages for an event it did not cause....it  it agreed to an indemnification clause.

So why would a temp supplier agree to such a clause? Often times it is because of the pressure exerted by the client. It becomes a "we'll take our business elsewhere" situation. Most of the time our client contact is not even aware of the risks that their legal experts are asking us to take.

We recently had to walk away from working with a long time customer that committed to a VMS (Vendor Management System) to manage all of its contingent labor usage. The VMS contract contained an indemnification clause that had the potential to put our entire company at risk.

From our perspective a fair agreement is one that allocate risks to the responsible party. And if the circumstances were reversed, would the asking party agree to the same agreement it is asking of the supplier.

Under certain circumstances a temp supplier that agrees to an indemnification clause could be voiding its insurance coverage. And without being a legal expert it appears that these type of agreements may not be legal in certain states.

When you think about it, how responsible is a company that goes out of its way to shift responsibility to others for its bad behavior? And what purpose does it serve to put your supplier out of business anyway?