[nfbwatlk] WSJ article on corporate backlash against proposed strengthening of Section 503

[Jedi]

Ben,

What about affirmative action plans that don't require quotas? What are 
your thoughts on those? I ask because I've taken classes explaining how 
different affirmative action plans work. The most common one these days 
is a point system in which members of protected classes who voluntarily 
self-identify during the application process get a certain amount of 
points when all is said and done. The employer doesn't see the 
affirmative action information until the number of qualified candidates 
is whittled down and there are only a few to choose from. At that 
point, HR staff can make the appropriate information based on 
disability and other protected statuses. Most applications, including 
ones I've filled out, just ask if you have a disability, but don't ask 
for specifics; there is also text explaining that such information 
won't be used in the hiring decision process except in cases where 
preference is given to a qualified candidate with a protected status.

Respectfully,
Jedi
Original message:
> Interesting article.  I for one tend to lean toward agreeing with the 
> employers in this case.  I never have liked percentages as a way to get 
> folks hired.  I don't think that just because you are disabled  you 
> should get the job.  I also don't believe that many employers really do 
> that anyway.
> First, it wouldn't be efficient, and second, the argument about hiring 
> just anyone because they are disabled is really a red herring that has 
> been used in arguments against affirmative action for other protected classes.

> My point is, that percentages don't work, and I think that tax credits 
> and other employer benefits work better.  Even when the Federal 
> government sets goals of having a certain percentage of hires being 
> disabled they don't do much to meet them, nor are they met.  Perhaps 
> training programs could be developed to educate industry or employment 
> personnel about how and why they should hire more folks with 
> disabilities.  Perhaps also, the employers need to calm down a bit on 
> their concerns about not being able to identify disabled individuals or 
> ask questions in the hiring process , etc.

> Just some random thoughts.

> Thanks for this, Noel.

> /s/

> Bennett Prows
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
> On Behalf Of Nightingale, Noel
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 8:55 AM
> To: nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nfbwatlk] WSJ article on corporate backlash against proposed 
> strengthening of Section 503


> The Wall Street Journal
> February 29, 2012

> U.S. Pushes Target for Hiring the Disabled By MELANIE TROTTMAN

> Employers and business groups are trying to stop an Obama administration
> effort that calls for federal contractors to hire a minimum number of
> disabled workers and could penalize those who don't by revoking their
> contracts.

> The proposal could reshape hiring at roughly 200,000 companies that generate
> $700 billion a year in contracts with the federal government. They include
> defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., aircraft maker Boeing Co. and
> firms across the health-care, construction and information-technology
> industries.

> Under the Labor Department plan, most firms that contract or subcontract
> with the federal government would be asked to have disabled people make up
> 7% of their work force. While the department says it wouldn't be an explicit
> requirement, companies that don't hit the target could have their contracts
> canceled or could be barred from winning future contracts until they show
> they are trying to meet the target.
> [DISABLED]

> Companies have flooded the department with complaints that the rule amounts
> to a first-ever government quota for hiring disabled workers that would
> expose them to a thicket of legal pitfalls. Some employers say there might
> not be enough qualified disabled workers in their fields to meet that target
> and that they may have to fire nondisabled workers to achieve the ratio.
> Others say that existing federal law actually prohibits them from asking
> whether a job applicant is disabled, potentially forcing firms to violate
> one law in order to comply with another.

> "We are very concerned that the department is moving forward with what is
> clearly a fundamental change in longstanding policies regarding affirmative
> action," said Jeffrey McGuiness, president of the HR Policy Association, a
> trade group for human-resource executives at more than 300 of the largest
> private-sector U.S. companies.

> The proposed changes were pushed in part by disability advocates, who say
> that decades-old laws intended to bring disabled people into the work force
> just aren't working. Technology has made it far easier for victims of
> illness or accident to complete work tasks.

> "Often people make assumptions that people with disabilities can't do a
> 'real' job," said Patrick Wojahn, a public-policy analyst for the National
> Disability Rights Network.

> The proposed contracting requirements are part of a broader federal effort
> aimed at making it easier for disabled people to find work, including
> injured war veterans. On Tuesday, the Equal Employment Opportunity
> Commission released updated guidelines to ensure that veterans with wartime
> injuries such as post traumatic stress disorder and other ailments qualify
> for federal disability protections.

> The Labor Department says the effort, disclosed in December, is necessary
> because 79.2% of working-age people with functional disabilities are out of
> the labor force entirely, compared with 30.5% of people without
> disabilities, a longstanding gap. Counting those who remain in the labor
> force, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 12.9% in
> January, compared with an unemployment rate of 8.7% for people without
> disabilities.

> Current law encourages federal contractors to maintain a diverse work force
> but sets no parameters on how many jobs must go to disabled Americans.

> "What gets measured gets done," said Patricia Shiu, director of the Labor
> Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. "And we're in
> the business of getting things done." The agency is proposing the change as
> an update to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

> The 7% target would apply to a contractor's work force as well as subsets of
> workers based on factors such as their job description and wage rates.
> Disability advocates hope the subset requirement will ensure disabled
> workers aren't unfairly steered toward lower-paying jobs. The department
> settled on a 7% target because it estimates that 5.7% of the civilian labor
> force-those working or looking for work-has a disability but another 1.7% of
> the civilian population is disabled and, by the Labor Department's
> estimation, wants work but is discouraged from seeking it.

> Regulators also are considering requiring that 2% of contractors' work
> forces be comprised of severely disabled workers, such as those with total
> deafness, blindness, or missing extremities.

> The scope of what would constitute a disability also isn't clear since the
> Labor Department's proposal doesn't include a specific list. The Americans
> with Disabilities Act, updated in 2008, says that workers are disabled if
> they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
> more of their major life activities. Lawyers who represent employers say
> that could include hundreds of possibilities from blindness to deafness to
> the less apparent such as asthma or mental illness.

> Businesses with fewer than 50 employees and less than $50,000 in federal
> contracts would be exempt from the hiring changes.

> Employers that don't reach the targets would be given a chance to improve
> compliance and would only lose contracts in "the most egregious cases" of
> not following the rule, Ms. Shiu said.

> Business officials say it isn't that simple. "You're looking to fill a
> position with the best possible hire and that doesn't necessarily preclude
> or exclude somebody with a disability," said Joe Trauger, a vice president
> for human-resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, a
> trade group representing 11,000 companies.

> Sonalysts Inc., an employee-owned professional-services business of 400
> workers that mostly serves the Defense Department, is asking the Labor
> Department to scrap the proposal. The Waterford, Conn., company estimates it
> would spend about $120,000 a year to hire the workers, process data tracking
> disabled employment and pay for legal challenges it expects would result
> from the rule.

> A Boeing spokesman said the company is studying the proposal, and Lockheed
> Martin declined to comment on what it told the Labor Department in response
> to the proposal.

> FirstBank Holding Co. of Lakewood, Co., says the rule would burden the
> company with paperwork and reporting requirements without actually
> increasing the number of disabled workers it employs. "Individuals with
> disabilities are not even applying for our open positions," the company
> wrote to the Labor Department. FirstBank asked the department to scale back
> the proposal but favors its requirement that employers advertise job
> openings with specific organizations that target the disabled.

> Kevan Johnson, an employment consultant with REACH of Dallas, a nonprofit
> that helps disabled people lead independent lives, said stronger regulations
> are needed because severely disabled workers are being overlooked by
> contractors "who think they can't do the job." Mr. Johnson said employers
> might not be aware of workplace accommodations they could make to enable a
> disabled person to do their job. "There's an education process," he said.

> Some employers worry that, in seeking out disabled workers, they would end
> up violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which they say
> prohibits employers from asking disability-related questions before hiring
> someone. There is also concern that such inquiries would make contractors
> vulnerable to lawsuits from people alleging their disclosures were actually
> used against them.

> Labor's Ms. Shiu said the requirement would be legal because contractors
> would be inviting people to "voluntarily self-identify" a disability to
> improve data collection. Companies would have to invite employees to do the
> same through an annual, anonymous survey.

> Write to Melanie Trottman at melanie.trottman at wsj.com

> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbwatlk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/bennett.prows%40hhs.gov

> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbwatlk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net

-- 
Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit 
www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.