The Right to Bear Arms….At Work
By Lindsey Lee, Investigative Consultant
 Florida has joined a small number of states, including Georgia and Tennessee, to pass legislation that prohibits business owners from implementing policies that restrict employees and others from bringing legally-licensed firearms onto their property. On April 15, 2008, Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed into law legislation that will allow employees to bring firearms onto company property, without repercussion from their employers, beginning on July 1, 2008. The law covers only those Florida residents who have lawfully obtained a concealed weapons permit, and, if they bring a gun onto company property, it must be locked in their vehicles, out of sight. The law does not extend, however, to select workplaces including prisons, schools, public hospitals, and nuclear power plants. Businesses found to have violated any provisions of the new law face a fine up to $10,000.
The National Rifle Association (“NRA”) has primarily spearheaded the effort with the backing of some labor unions, asserting that this measure is a step forward in the ongoing fight to protect individuals’ Second Amendment right to bear arms. The business lobby, on the other hand, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation, are actively fighting the new legislation and are hoping to prevent its July 1 effective date. Those opposed to the legislation argue that it violates the privacy rights of employers to decide what is best for their businesses. Additionally, these critics have expressed concern about the potential risks to workplace safety this new measure poses, citing studies which show that organizations that allow firearms on their property suffer higher rates of workplace homicide on company property.
Will Florida move forward with the July 1 effective date of this new law? Does this represent a statutory trend? Can we anticipate similar legislation to follow in other states? Do the constitutional rights of individuals trump the rights of private employers to govern their businesses and their property as they see fit? Many outstanding questions remain, fueling the political firestorm this legislation has created in Florida.
Warning Sign for Recruiters of H-1B Labor
By Fred Hessler, Director of Business Development
On May 1, 2008, the US Department of Justice announced that Pittsburgh based iGATE Mastech, Inc. had been assessed $45,000 in civil penalties for openly discriminating against US citizens in job postings. An information technology consulting firm, iGATE Mastech employs over 6000 workers worldwide.
The Justice Department found that approximately 30 iGATE Mastech job postings in the spring of 2006, contained language expressly favoring holders of H-1B visas to the detriment of US citizens and permanent residents. Hiring practices that discriminate on the basis of citizenship are prohibited under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Like many firms in its market, iGATE Mastech hires holders of H-1B and L-1 visas to compensate for a perceived shortage of domestic information technology labor. The H-1B program permits 65,000 foreign workers (and over 100,000 when various exemptions are included), generally with skills in technical disciplines, to enter the US each year for a three-year period, extendable to six-years.
The H-1B program has come under heightened scrutiny in recent years. Supporters, including technology giants such as Microsoft, have lobbied for increasing the numbers of visas awarded annually due to shortages in the domestic labor pool. Opponents, arguing that the program is often abused by businesses seeking only to hire lower-paid foreign workers, have urged various reforms.
iGATE Mastech’s penalty resulted from language in its job postings that expressly favored H-1B holders. Under US law, recruiting practices must be neutral with regard to citizenship.
The Justice Department’s action resulted from a complaint filed by the Programmers Guild, an advocacy group for US technology workers. The Programmers Guild claims to have filed over 100 such complaints alleging open discrimination against US citizens and permanent residents in job postings.
Quote of the Month
"Opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people don't recognize them."
-Ann Landers
Ways to Improve the Interview Process
By Autumn Lowry, Investigative Consultant
Over the last 50 years, psychologists have criticized employment interviews on the basis that they are subjective and poor predictors of future job performance. However, a small investment can drastically improve hiring practices, significantly upgrading the interview process, and in turn, improve the quality of employees who are hired. When reviewing applicants, a company should utilize a structured interview and maintain a consistent evaluation process to ensure the usefulness and fairness of the interview.
A meta-analysis featured in the Journal of Applied Psychology suggests that a structured interview is more than twice as effective as unstructured interviews (Wiesner, W.H. & Cronshaw, S.F., 1988). To ensure consistency, interviewers should be provided with scripts and a standard set of questions to use with every applicant. Additionally, the questions should address the specific requirements of the job. The use of non-job related questions can intrude on the privacy and rights of the interviewees and potentially lead to legal problems. Another strategy for structuring employment interviews is to examine the prospective employee’s ability to make good judgments in a variety of situations. Research suggests that it is best to focus on relevant examples of past behavior that demonstrate the applicant’s experience, rather then responses to scripted hypothetical situations (Pulakos, E.D. & Schmidtt, N., 1995).
Utilizing an interview panel that consists of several interviewers to question job candidates can greatly improve the reliability of the hiring process. It is recommended that the panels contain two or three interviewers for the most effective results (McDaniel, M.A., Whezel, D.L., Schmidt, F.L., & Maurer, S.D., 1994); however, this will only hold true if the interviewers are using the same list of questions and are instructed how to consistently score the interviewees’ responses. The interviewers must be initially monitored by an uninvolved party to ensure that the panel can demonstrate agreement on the evaluation criteria, creating inter-rater reliability. The interview process should be tested using current employees to determine if the interview evaluation and hiring process are able to predict future success in the company. For example, if a current, successful employee is unable to achieve a high evaluation score, it is unlikely that the interview process is able to accurately predict future success.
Instead of hiring an employee based on a “gut feeling,” it is recommended that Human Resources Departments implement the above guidelines to ensure the future success of a company. The reviewed literature reveals that structuring the hiring process contributes to the effectiveness of the employment interview, and typically results in a more objective and predictable evaluation.
Let There Be Light!
One Employee’s Quest to Reduce Her Footprint (Part 2 of 2)
By Hollie Peterson, Account Manager
 In the May issue, you may have read about my quest for knowledge on compact florescent lamps (CFLs) and how I could reduce my energy footprint. My first two stages of research consisted of actually purchasing a couple CFLs and beginning to learn as much about them as possible.
With my first two stages of research complete, I find the nearest Excel spreadsheet and start entering data. I enter all data from my last year’s utility bills and find out that I could very realistically save about 25% each month with these new found friends. It also turns out that if every person changes five of their most frequently used incandescent bulbs with five CFLs, we could save $8 billion (that’s billion with a capital “B”) a year in energy costs and prevent the greenhouse gases equivalent of removing 10 million cars from the road.[1] That’s a big deal, folks.
I now enter the fourth stage of research: a.k.a. what else can I do? It becomes a competition, me versus the energy users. I start reading books, touting my new-found knowledge like a third-grader, convincing my friends to do the same, holding press conferences and generally acting like I discovered America. At the same time, I am completely genuine about this. It’s the real deal. There are few things in life that can make such a huge and measurable impact. I also found out that the hot water heater is an evildoer in our midst. The hot water heater is the home’s largest energy user [2], and by insulating the tank and piping, you can save 4%–9% in water heating costs and reduce standby heat losses by 25%–45%.[3]
So, as you may have guessed, I’ve changed out all my old incandescent bulbs with CFLs, insulated my hot water heater and piping, turned down the heat, and purchased a new Energy Star rated front loading washer and dryer. Throughout the process, I learned that I didn’t have to spend a fortune, and within about 6-8 months, these changes would pay for themselves in energy savings. I’ve tried to find new and creative ways to eventually get that utility company to start issuing checks directly to me instead of receiving them from me. This would be my ultimate goal and I’m fine if the environment is saved in the process and my “footprint” gets a little smaller. With size nine feet, this may be my only option and a welcome one at that.
[1] www.energystar.gov
[2] Green Living: The E Magazine Handbook for Living Lightly on the Earth (Paperback) by E Magazine
[3] http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13070
|
