Director Shiu: Federal contractors, OFCCP need to communicate “without filters”
November 1st, 2011 | Cynthia L. Hackerott | Add a Comment
The OFCCP and federal contractors need to speak to each other “without filters,” OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu told the audience at the National Employment Law Institute’s (NELI) Twenty-Ninth Annual Affirmative Action Briefing held in Chicago, Illinois. Shiu was one of several speakers featured at the briefing which was co-chaired by OFCCP expert John C. Fox, President and a founder of Fox, Wang & Morgan P.C. The OFCCP Director stated that contractors should not feel they need to rely on lawyers and other compliance experts to decipher what the OFCCP means. “Don’t believe everything you read” regarding OFCCP enforcement activities, Shiu cautioned.
Compensation data collection tool. As an example, Shiu noted some of the reactions to the OFCCP’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2011 (76 FR 49398-49401), that sought stakeholder comments on 15 specific inquiries related to the development and implementation of a compensation data collection tool. Shiu said that the agency did not start the process of developing this tool with pre-conceived notions of where it would end up and that is why it published the ANPRM posing those 15 questions. She explained that the 15 questions are “very open-ended” because compensation analysis is very difficult and the OFCCP wants to learn how contractors compensate their employees. “The way we approached wage discrimination before was too narrow,” Shiu stated.
The comment period on this APRM closed on October 11, 2011. Shiu said that many of the thousands of comments submitted in response to the ANPRM simply objected to the idea of any compensation data collection tool. However, Shiu maintained that a compensation data collection tool is needed because data is the “linchpin” for civil rights enforcement. Data collection is vital to enforcement because “what is measured gets done.”
According to Shiu, many of the other comments on the APRM projected what the commenter believed the OFCCP is going to do, and then responded to this projected action. Contractors “can take a break from all that speculating,” Shiu advised.
Echoes of NILG. The majority of Shiu’s remarks at the NELI briefing largely echoed her keynote address on July 27 of this year at the Industry Liaison Group National Conference in New Orleans. She again stated that “affirmative action can no longer be defined by good faith efforts” and emphasized the importance of clarity in enforcement. The Director detailed how her agency is updating and revising out of date regulations, including: (1) the regulations at 41 CFR Part 60-741 that implement the nondiscrimination and affirmative action provisions of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (one again noting that the upcoming proposal will be a “game changer”); (2) the regulations in 41 CFR Part 60-4 implementing the affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 that are applicable to federal and federally assisted construction contractors; and (3) the regulations at 41 CFR Part 60-20 which set forth interpretations and guidelines for implementing the nondiscrimination provisions of EO 11246 in regard to sex.
Shiu also noted that the OFCCP’s revisions to its Federal Contract Compliance Manual are near completion and that the agency’s compliance reviews are, and will be, more thorough and careful, focusing on quality rather than quantity.
Midwest Region changes. The OFCCP’s Midwest Region, headquarted in Chicago, is currently in transition. Shiu stated that she learned value of diversity in Chicago, having grown up in the city’s Hyde Park neighborhood. This summer, both Midwest Regional Director Sandra Ziegler and Deputy Regional Director Shirley Thomas resigned from the OFCCP. Shiu reported that the agency currently has a transition team in Chicago that is getting new leadership in place and working to make the Midwest Region more like other regions in terms of organization. Melissa Speer, the Acting Director of the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regional Office, is also serving as the Interim Director for the Midwest Region.
Shiu also said that before she became the OFCCP Director, the agency had regions that acted “pretty independently,” and that she is working to make the regions more uniform.
Subsequent to Shiu’s remarks, Fox said that both Ziegler’s and Thomas’ resignations were voluntary. In addition, he explained that Ziegler had centralized the Midwest Region by taking all authority out of the district offices and running everything out of the Chicago regional office. Fox reported that currently, Shiu is decentralizing the Midwest Region and has to hire at least eight district directors, plus a regional director and a deputy director; he predicted this transition will take about a year.
As OFCCP Director, Shiu oversees a staff of nearly 800 employees nationwide. She also serves on the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force and represents Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on the federal Interagency Working Group of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
Fox represents companies and tries cases in state and federal courts that involve primarily individual trade secret claims, employment contract disputes, wage-hour and employment discrimination class actions, wrongful termination, corporate investigations, and the use of statistics in employment matters. Fox previously served as Executive Assistant to the Director of the OFCCP, where he was responsible for all enforcement and policy matters.
NELI’s Twenty-Ninth Annual Affirmative Action Briefing was held in Chicago on October 20-21, 2011. For more information on NELI, including its publications and future programs, call (303) 861-5600 or go to NELI’s website at: www.neli.org.
Employers deal with “Occupy Wall Street” and other new challenges to maintaining employee morale
November 1st, 2011 | Lorene Park | Add a Comment
Employers have it tough right now. They must deal with the economic downturn, preserve resources, strengthen the company’s financial position, and at the same time try to keep employees happy. High morale is essential to retaining a talented workforce and to maintaining high productivity. Raising employee morale has always been a challenge; but let’s face it, American workers are not happy right now. They are worried. Unemployment is high and the federal court system reports that employment litigation is rising. Moreover, the public is responding positively to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which expanded from protesting corporate greed in the financial sector to also protesting economic inequality between the wealthy and the rest of the population. It is unclear what ultimate impact the Occupy movement will have; but it has already exceeded expectations. Protests have reportedly been held in over 600 U.S. communities and 900 cities worldwide. An October Time Magazine survey found that 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while 23% have a negative impression. An October CBS News poll had similar results. With this momentum, the Occupy movement will likely impact employee opinions, and employers should consider what steps can be taken to maintain high employee morale.
One way to reduce employees’ anxiety and uncertainty is simply to communicate with them, emphasizing the steps that the company is taking to remain strong. Avoid dwelling on the negative effects of the steps taken and emphasize the benefits of ensuring the strength of the company and thus job security. It is important to maintain a strong image with employees in order to keep morale (and thus productivity) high. Employers should also be aware of external, individual influences on employee morale due to poor economic conditions. For example, if an employee’s spouse loses his or her job, the employee may be facing a personal financial crisis. Employers should consider providing such employees with information on resources that might be available to them, such as temporary loan deferrals or early hardship withdrawals from 401(k) plans. In addition, employers may want to educate employees about any employee assistance program offered by the employer. By providing general information on resources available to employees facing economic hardships, employers are helping to increase morale and improve productivity.
If the company is in fact considering taking drastic steps in order to cut costs, then consider alternatives to layoffs, such as using a work-sharing or short-time compensation (STC) program. As explained in a 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service, STC is a program within the federal-state unemployment compensation system. In the 20 states that operate STC programs, workers whose hours are reduced under a work sharing plan may be compensated with STC, which is an unemployment benefit that has been pro-rated for the partial work reduction. Basically, a company faced with the need to downsize chooses to reduce work hours across the board for all workers instead of laying workers off. According to the CRS report, employers use STC and work-sharing to reduce labor costs, sustain morale compared to layoffs, and retain highly skilled workers. Work sharing can also reduce recruitment and training costs by eliminating the need to recruit new employees when business improves. Other alternatives to layoffs include job transfers within a corporation; salary reductions; retraining employees to work in other jobs requiring a similar skill set; hiring freezes and attrition; mandatory time off or furloughs; and telecommuting to reduce overhead.
Whatever steps an employer takes to ensure the health of the company, the employer is well advised to always consider the impact on employee morale. Not only will higher morale mean higher productivity, but high employee morale translates into a strong positive image with customers, suppliers, and the community.
Employee’s personal motivation in making whistleblower complaint didn’t deprive him of whistleblower protections
October 28th, 2011 | Ron Miller | Add a Comment
It is fairly evident in the context of suits under the False Claims Act, that the possibility of significant remuneration to the plaintiff is often a significant motivator for individuals to report that their employer is engaged in wrongdoing. Congress had no difficulty with that circumstance when it devised the statutory scheme. But, does the same logic apply in other instances of whistleblowing by employees? A Maryland Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative in Lawson v Bowie State Univ, when it reversed a lower court ruling that affirmed the decision of an administrative law judge, and extended whistleblower protections extended to an employee whose decision to disclose possible violations was personally motivated by a desire to make changes in the university police department in which he worked.
The employee was a 17-year veteran of a university police department when he was terminated for violating the department’s chain of command policy. Specifically, the employee drafted a letter disclosing potential abuses by fellow officers and, feeling unable to report these violations to the chief of police, he sent the letter to the university’s vice president of student affairs. The contents of the employee’s letter were forwarded to the police chief, leading to discharge for insubordination. Following his termination, the employee sought relief through administrative channels, arguing that he was entitled to whistleblower protection because the letter constituted a “protected disclosure” under Sec. 5-305 of the Maryland State Personnel Code.
Maryland’s Whistleblower Act prohibits reprisals against state employees for making a protected disclosure. Here, an ALJ dismissed the employee’s appeal on grounds that his letter was not a protected disclosure. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that the employee did not have a “reasonable belief that evidenced abuse of authority, mismanagement, waste of money, a danger to public safety or a violation of law.” The ALJ found that the employee did not have a reasonable belief after concluding that the letter was motivated by a crusade to make changes to the police department himself, rather than for the purpose of notifying higher authority to a pattern of wrongdoing.
However, the court of appeals determined that the ALJ erred in concluding that the employee did not satisfy the “reasonable belief” requirement of the Whistleblower Act. Maryland’s whistleblower protection statute requires only that the employee have a reasonable belief that he is reporting a violation, not that the employee possess a purely altruistic motive for the disclosure, concluded the appeals court.
The Maryland appeals court agreed with the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Horton v Dept of the Navy, that a motivation to make changes in the department is not a ground for denying whistleblower protections. In this instance, the ALJ improperly conflated the employee’s personal motivation for disclosure with the statutory requirement that an employee have a reasonable belief that the information disclosed evidences a violation, held the appeals court.
While we might like to think that whistleblowers are motivated by an employer’s unlawful or unethical activity that prompts a fit of moral outrage, in the final analysis, the motivation of the employee does not weigh heavily in an analysis of whether or not he or she enjoys protection as a whistleblower.
Congressmen introduce Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act
October 26th, 2011 | Deborah Hammonds | Add a Comment
New legislation intended to ensure workers with disabilities earn a fair wage has been proposed by two members of Congress. The Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2011 (H.R. 3086) was introduced by Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Congressman Tim Bishop (D-NY). The legislation would phase out Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which allows employers holding special wage certificates to pay their workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage.
“Although the disabled have made significant progress in achieving the American dream, they still face unfairness in the workplace under a provision that allows employers to pay workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage,” said Representative Stearns. ”Protections for disabled workers were excluded in the Fair Labor Standards Act in the mistaken belief that they were not as productive as other workers. Workers with disabilities contribute to our economy and to our society, and they deserve equal pay for equal work.”
Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, expressed strong support for the legislation. “The Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act is a long-overdue effort to correct an injustice written into a law meant to protect all American workers from abuse and exploitation. Workers with disabilities were excluded from the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act because of the false belief that we cannot be as productive as Americans without disabilities. Courage and creativity are required to replace the misguided benevolence that has historically shaped policies toward people with disabilities with real opportunity for our equal employment and full participation in the workplace. We applaud Representatives Stearns and Bishop and we hope that a significant majority of their colleagues possess the courage and creativity to end over seventy years of exploitation of people with disabilities.”
“Ensuring that Americans with disabilities receive equal pay for equal work is more than a matter of basic fairness, it’s a long-overdue acknowledgement of the value disabled Americans contribute to our workplaces every day,” said Congressman Bishop. ”I hope all of my colleagues will support this bipartisan effort to correct over seventy years of injustice.”
The legislation has also found strong support from New York Governor David A. Paterson, a member of and consultant to the NFB, who urged immediate passage of the Act. “It is long past time for the anachronistic provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act that allows workers with disabilities to be paid less than the federal minimum wage to be phased out. As Samuel R. Bagenstos, former principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, has reported, Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act does not encourage mainstream employers to hire disabled workers; does not result in the training of workers with disabilities to participate in competitive employment; and does not even produce wages tied to the alleged lower productivity of disabled workers, which is a myth in any event. This anachronism must be stricken from America’s statute books, and workers with disabilities must receive equal pay for equal work and an equal opportunity to succeed.”
Cosponsors of the legislation are Lou Barletta (R-PA), Gregg Harper (R-MS), Peter T. King (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-PA), and Edolphus Towns (D-NY). The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
In response to public comments, OFCCP revises proposal that would require contractors to submit more information during desk audits
October 20th, 2011 | Cynthia L. Hackerott | Add a Comment
The OFCCP has revised its proposed changes that would allow the agency to seek more, and more detailed information from federal contractors during the desk audit phase of compliance evaluations, including information on FMLA, pregnancy leave and religious accommodation policies, more specific demographic information on employment decisions, more precise data for compensation analysis (aggregate data rather than the disaggregate data) and VETS-100/VETS-100A forms. Notice of the revised proposal was published in the September 28, 2011 edition of the Federal Register (76 FR 60083-60084). The revised proposal addresses comments received regarding the OFCCP’s initial proposal issued in May of this year and, in response to those comments, contains several changes to the original proposal.
Federal Register notices. As reported in Employment Law Daily on May 12, 2011, a notice in that day’s edition of the Federal Register (76 FR 27670-27671), indicated that the OFCCP was seeking comments on a proposal to revise its current recordkeeping, reporting and third-party disclosure requirements for federal supply and service (i.e.nonconstruction) contractors, but the Federal Register notice itself does not indicate the content of the proposed revisions. Rather, the content of these revisions is revealed in supporting documentation for the notice provided to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by the OFCCP. The proposed revisions to the OFCCP’s scheduling letter, itemized listing and the OFCCP’s supporting statement submitted to the OMB explaining the changes were posted on the Regulations.gov website. Written comments on the May 12 proposal were due on July 11, 2011.
The September 28 Federal Register notice indicates that the earlier proposal has been revised. As with the May 12 notice, the September 28 Federal Register notice itself does not indicate the content of the revised proposal. Rather, the content of these revisions is revealed in supporting documentation for the notice provided to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by the OFCCP. A copy of this supporting documentation — including revisions to the proposed scheduling letter, itemized listing, and compliance check letter and the OFCCP’s supporting statement submitted to the OMB explaining the changes — may be obtained by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 or sending an email to DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. They are also posted on the website at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Public comments. In the supporting documentation for the September 28 revised proposal, the OFCCP stated that it analyzed each of the 20 public comment submissions it received from various contractors, industry organizations and associations, consultants, advocacy and non-profit groups and others in response to the May 12 proposal. In general, six of the commenters supported the OFCCP’s proposed revisions to the scheduling letter and itemized listing and 14 were opposed or critical of the revisions. The majority of the comments focused on the request in the itemized listing for compensation data. The agency reports that it also received generally supportive comments on the proposed revisions to its compliance check letter. Most of the other comments concerned requests for information related to contractor employment activity, leave policies, and anticipated adjustments that contractors may need to make to their human resources information systems (HRIS). The agency also received comments on the calculation of burden, the collection of documents elaborating on collective bargaining agreements, and the request for supporting documents related to compliance with Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA).
After considering these comments, the OFCCP determined that the benefits associated with receiving improved data from contractors and the net reduction of 1.34 hours in the total burden hours spent by contractors in supplying OFCCP with that data were the “best most innovative” and “least burdensome tasks” for achieving the agency’s regulatory goals. In addition, the OFCCP asserts that its assessment found “societal benefits” would result from finalizing the proposed changes to the scheduling letter and itemized listing. Among them are the:
- inclusion of more qualified workers in the nation’s workforce,
- ability to provide America’s returning veterans and wounded warriors meaningful employment opportunities as they transition from the military,
- opportunity to develop a workforce that reflects the diversity of the nation, and
- strengthening of our ability to compete effectively in a global economy based on the diversity and skill of America’s workforce.
The OFCCP did identify a few alternatives to its initial proposal that it believes would be as effective in assessing contractor compliance with their nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations that are less burdensome. Therefore, the agency made several changes to the original proposal in response to the comments it received. A detailed analysis of the public comments, and the agency’s corresponding responses, is contained in the supporting statement for the September 28 revised proposal.
Revisions to scheduling letter and itemized listing. Once a federal contractor has been selected for an OFCCP audit, the agency sends its standard scheduling letter and corresponding itemized listing requesting the contractor to provide the OFCCP with its affirmative action programs and specified supporting documents and records. The scheduling letter and the contractor’s response to it are known collectively as the “desk audit” phase of a compliance review. If the results of the desk audit reveal “indicators” of potential discrimination or other compliance issues, the OFCCP may dispatch a compliance officer to conduct an on-site review of the contractor.
The itemized listing that accompanies the current OFCCP scheduling letter contains 11 items, and the proposed changes would increase this number to 13 items. The proposed changes to the current version of the itemized listing are the following:
(1) A new item 8: submission of employment policies covering the FMLA, pregnancy leave, and accommodations for religious observances and practices. In the absence of these policies, the OFCCP would accept a contractor’s employee handbook or manual. The OFCCP asserts that receipt of these policies would assist it in better determining the existence of sex or religious discrimination indicators within contractor organizations. Additionally, the policy requirements would enhance the OFCCP’s broad authority under Executive Order 11246 (EO 11246) to prohibit sex and religious discrimination in employment and its share enforcement responsibilities with the EEOC under Title VII.
The revised proposal provides the option of submitting the manual or handbook, or submitting only relevant pages (including the front cover of the manual or handbook, the table of contents, and those pages with the leave policies). In the supporting statement for the revised proposal, the OFCCP notes that it is not charged with FMLA enforcement. However, the OFCCP maintains that under its existing authority, it can review leave and other personnel policies to determine whether they, as they are applied or by virtue of their absence, have a discriminatory impact on women, minority groups, and others protected by the laws OFCCP enforces.
(2) Changes to new item 9 (current item 8) — the OFCCP proposes to further define “other information” in contractor collective bargaining agreements to clarify for contractors the specific information requested during compliance evaluations.
(3) Changes to new item 10 (current item 9) — the Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) reporting requirements would be changed from preceding year to immediate preceding year to clarify specific AAP reporting timelines for contractors.
(4) Changes to new item 11 (current item 10) — the OFCCP proposed to included in this item more specific demographic information related to applicants, hires, promotions, and terminations to eliminate ambiguous minority and non-minority terminology. In addition, contractors would now be required to submit data by job group and job title, instead of job group or job title in the current scheduling letter. The OFCCP maintains that this change would result in the OFCCP obtaining more accurate reporting data for its analyses related to identifying sex and race discrimination indicators.
In the supporting statement for the revised proposal, the OFCCP states that “obtaining data by job group and job title will decrease a contractor’s ability to mask discrimination by manipulating the data within either job groups or job titles. Moreover, contractors are already required to collect data on applicants, hires, promotions and terminations for each job title by gender, race, and ethnicity.”
“The provision of the data by job group and job title creates a fuller picture of the employment practices of contractors,” the agency also maintains. “Even where a job title has insufficient data to test for statistical significance, there may be enough data to suggest potential discrimination. Improved data collection and analysis should reduce the number of requests for additional and more detailed information by OFCCP thus saving time and reducing contractor burden.”
Moreover, to the extent that contractors may be required to adjust HR systems to provide data by job group for separate race or ethnic groups, the OFCCP revised its burden estimates to reflect these start-up costs.
(5) Changes to new item 12 (current item 11) — The changes would require a contractor to submit more precise data for the OFCCP’s compensation analysis. The more precise data is aggregate data rather than the disaggregate data requested in the current scheduling letter. A submission of aggregated data would allow the OFCCP to perform more specific analyses, and pinpoint possible discrimination based on race or sex. The OFCCP states it will no longer ask for disaggregate compensation data, which required contractors to aggregate the data themselves, thereby increasing their burden. In addition, the disaggregate data was less effective in allowing the OFCCP to analyze compensation, according to the agency.
The supporting statement for the revised proposal notes that among the many concerns regarding this item, are concerns about confidentiality surrounding the production of compensation data. In response, the OFCCP notes that disclosure of information obtained from a contractor will be evaluated pursuant to the public inspection and disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Section 552, and the Department of Labor’s implementing regulations at 29 CFR Part 70. The OFCCP will also adhere to the requirements of the Privacy Act, as applicable. The agency also noted that it requires that contractors be notified in writing when a FOIA request is made for contractor data. The OFCCP will make no decision to disclose such documents until the contractor has an opportunity to submit objections to the release of the record or data. Moreover, the OFCCP pointed out that it does not release data obtained during the course of a compliance evaluation until the investigation is complete. Furthermore, if the contractor is concerned with the confidentiality of such information as lists of employee names, reasons for termination, or pay data, then the OFCCP will accept (for purposes of the compliance evaluation) alphabetic or numeric coding or the use of an index of pay and pay ranges, consistent with the ranges assigned to each job group. Finally, in light of privacy concerns raised by commenters, the OFCCP revised this item to include a disclosure/confidentiality statement.
(6) New item 13 — The initial proposed would have required contractors to submit copies of their Veterans’ Employment Reports VETS-100 and/or VETS-100A for the last three years. These documents are required reporting for federal contractors and include information on their hiring on disabled and other protected veterans under VEVRAA. The revised proposal was changed so that it would now require contractors to submit their VETS-100 and/or 100A forms for two years (the current year and the previous year).
Compliance check letter. The proposal also includes a revised compliance check scheduling letter, but the specific documents sought in this letter would remain unchanged. A compliance check is a limited purpose evaluation (i.e. perfunctory assessment) of the contractor’s establishment to determine whether the contractor has maintained certain records as required under the OFCCP’s regulations. At the contractor’s option, the documents may be provided either on-site or off-site. In the initial supporting statement, the OFCCP reports that it has not scheduled any compliance checks for fiscal year 2011 and notes that, consequently, the burden hours for compliance checks will be zero.
Increase in burden hours.The supporting statement for the revised proposal details that the OFCCP is requesting OMB approval of 11,949,346 hours in combined recordkeeping, reporting and third party disclosure burden hours for compliance with Executive Order 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA by non-construction (supply and service) federal contractors (the initial proposal stated 11,174,641 hours for EO 11246 compliance) . This compares with 10,045,984 hours for the last clearance request, an increase of 1,903,362 hours (11 hours per contractor). According to the OFCCP, “[t]his change is primarily due to an increase in the number of supply and service contractor establishments from 99,028 to 171,275 (an addition of 72,247 contractors). The increase in the number of contractors is the result of OFCCP recalculating data in the Equal Employment Data System, FPDS-NG and Dun & Bradstreet to establish the number of Federal contractor establishments for this Information Collection Request. (The initial proposal reported an increase to 108,288 (an addition of 9,260 contractors) based on data from the Equal Employment Data System.)
In explaining the changes in burden hours listed in the initial supporting statement and in the revised supporting statement, the OFCCP explained that in light of the public comments, the agency worked with its data integrity team to reexamine how the original number of contractors and establishments was developed. Because of the second data run, the OFCCP states that it initially identified a slightly smaller contractor establishment pool. After combining the results of the EEO-1 data of 87,013 contractor establishments with 50 or more employees and the FPDS-NG data with 10,518 such establishments, the result was 97,531 establishments. Covered contractors must develop AAPs for all establishments, even those with fewer than 50 employees. By adding those estimated 73,744 establishments to this number, the adjusted total was 171,275 establishments.
Costs. In the revised proposal, the OFCCP also requested approval for $129,663,262 annualized operations and maintenance costs for the revised information collection proposal. This compares with $120,019 for the last clearance request, an increase of $1,793 for each contractor. The increase is due to an increase in one time start-up costs related to the new components of this information collection. Specifically, it accounts for contractors or their human resources service providers/vendors developing additional queries or “views” in their human resource information systems.
In its initial proposal, the OFCCP asserted that there were no capital or start-up costs associated with this collection of information because the information that contractors provide the OFCCP is generally maintained in the normal course of their businesses. The revised cost analysis was made in response to public comments about the possible cost and burden of updating or revising Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) that cut across several of the proposed changes to the scheduling letter and itemized listing.
The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 1250-0003 and the current requirements expire September 30, 2011. However, existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New or revised information collection requirements would only take effect after OMB approval.
Written comments on the revised proposal are due on October 28, 2011 and should be submitted to: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov).
