Case of FLSA and definition of clothing
On November 4, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case addressing the issue of whether or not steelworkers should be paid for time spent changing into their protective clothing. Section 203 (o) of the FSLA excludes from the definition of hours worked the time spent “changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday” if it has been excluded “by the express terms of or by custom or practice under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.” However the term “clothes” is not defined in the FSLA.
Clifton Sandifer and a group of current and former steelworkers at the U.S. Steel Corporation’s Gary, Indiana plant sued their employer for violating the FLSA because they failed to compensate them for time spent putting on and taking off their work clothes in the plant’s locker room. The steelworkers union had a collective bargaining agreement in place with the U.S. Steel Corporation since 1947. According to the bargaining agreement, workers are not paid for the time it takes to put on (donning) their safety gear before they start work or the time it takes to take off (doffing) their safety gear at the end of their shift.
Steelworkers must arrive early for each shift to put on their protective gear and travel to their work site in time for their shift to begin. Protective gear includes items such as flame-retardant suits, steel-toed shoes, hard hats, safety glasses, and hoods. Time spent putting on protective gear and traveling to their work site can be substantial for some workers due to the amount of safety gear required and the large size of the plants. In fact, some workers travel by bus from the locker room to the work site due to the size of the plant.
The steelworkers argue that Section 203 (o) is inapplicable because putting on safety gear does not fall within the meaning of the phrase “changing clothes”. They believe “changing clothes” refers only to changing from street clothes to work clothes. The U.S. Steel Corporation argues that safety gear is included within the language “changing clothes” and has been bargained with the union. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this case yet.
Reprinted with permission from the Personnel Testing Council of Metropolitan Washington.
Individuals with disabilities changes for Federal Contractors/Subcontractors
Arguably, one of the most important Federal regulatory changes in 2013 was the OFCCP’s final release of regulations updating Section 421 of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1973 (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 in the Federal Register. These regulations prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against protected veterans/individuals with disabilities (IWDs) in employment contexts and require employers to take affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain veterans/IWDs. The final rules were designed to strengthen the affirmative action provisions of the regulations and to aid contractors in their efforts to recruit and hire protected veterans/IWDs and to improve job opportunities for these individuals.
Each of the final rules imposes new obligations on federal contractors regarding veterans and individuals with disabilities (IWDs). The updated regulations expand contractors’ affirmative action and non-discriminatory obligations and impose new record keeping, posting, and notice requirements designed to allow the OFCCP to evaluate compliance. Highlights of the final rules include: (more…)
Multiple Forms of Written Exams
When I was in school — particularly elementary school, where the practice seemed to be more prevalent — it troubled me to witness one student copying off another during tests. I always thought this was unfair. I wish I could say that I was upset by cheating because it damaged the educational system, but in reality I was angry because of the impact on me personally.
I carried that impression into the HR world. Since many decisions are based on test results that impact the health and effectiveness of an organization, I felt more justified in taking an active part to prevent cheating in this arena.
It pleased me a great deal when I discovered that there were other ways to discourage copying beyond the utilization of diligent test proctors. Making different forms of the same test was perhaps a devious method to discourage copying. On the other hand, we always announced to test takers the possibility that multiple forms of the test were in use so they would know that the person next to them may not have the same test. (more…)
The Impact of Appeals on Selection Systems
If you’d like to review the previous articles in this series, which were posted back in November, you can find them here: Part 1: Complaints & Appeals Related to Testing: An Overview and Part 2: Considering Your Appeals Process.
This is the third article in this series on complaints and appeals and it is intended to give courage and hope to some of you in the HR profession who are dealing with rules governing complaints and appeals that do not support sound test development and validation procedures. If we are to support and improve the effectiveness of testing and the value of the work done by those in our profession, we need to recognize that there are times we need to work to change rules that are contrary to sound practices. While being a change agent can be fraught with risks, it can also produce rewards. Before going forward with any efforts to modify existing rules, it is critical to assess the climate in which you work and the impact appeal procedures have on the utility of the tests you are using.
Some of the basic things we know about test development and test validation include the fact that tests only measure the KSAP’s (knowledge, skills, abilities and personal characteristics) that an individual possesses at the time of testing. We also know that most tests we use in Human Resources are either aptitude tests or achievement tests.
In general terms:
- Aptitude tests measure one’s ability to learn and retain information over time and they are usually the types of test used for entry-level testing.
- Achievement tests are designed to measure one’s knowledge of a particular subject after having received training and/or experience in that area.
Anything that occurs post test in regard to providing candidates the opportunity to review the test and appeal test items changes candidates’ body of knowledge that can be applied to the test and therefore negatively impacts the reliability of the test. That is, we are now measuring candidates’ abilities to conduct research and make cogent arguments regarding the quality of test items and their answers compared to keyed answers. We are no longer able to determine what candidates knew or did not know at the time of the test. So when we change scores for candidates based on appeals we are giving them credit for information they may or may not have had during the test. That means we are no longer measuring what the test was intended to measure and alterations in scores that negatively impact reliability also reduce the validity of the test. (more…)
Fair Treatment for Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Under the Affordable Care Act
Last week, the U.S. Department of Treasury announced that fire departments will not be required to provide coverage to volunteer firefighters under the Affordable Care Act. You can read the statement in full on the Treasury Department’s blog.
Neil Reichenberg, the Executive Director of IPMA-HR, released the following statement this week supporting the decision:
The International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR) commends the Treasury Department for its decision exempting volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency medical personnel from being considered employees of the organizations in the implementing regulations for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. According to the National Volunteer Fire Council, there are more than 750,000 volunteer firefighters and an estimated additional 200,000 – 300,000 volunteer emergency medical personnel in the United States. The cost of providing health care to volunteers would have a potentially devastating financial impact on those agencies that utilize volunteers. This could result in agencies curtailing or eliminating the use of volunteers, which could have a negative impact on public safety.
How would the Affordable Care Act have affected your agency’s staffing practices in the future? Would you have been forced to reduce staff hours to comply with the new law? We’d love to hear your feedback in the comments below.
First Line Supervisor Tests Updated and New Reading Lists
Due to recent updates to the published source material for our First Line Supervisor tests, ECC-FLS 102 and CF-FLS 102, we have had to make updates to some of the test questions that appear in those tests.
As a result of these updates, we are reprinting the tests under new names. The new tests correspond to the old ones as follows:
- ECC-FLS 102 will now be known as ECC-FLS 202
- CF-FLS 102 will now be known as CF-FLS 202
If you’ve already distributed the reading lists for either test you do not need to take any further action or redistribute a new reading list. When you order your test, just make sure to order the test that matches the reading list you provided to your candidates. We will retain sufficient stock to fulfill all orders of the older test.
From this point forward, we will be providing the CF-FLS 202 and ECC-FLS 202 reading lists only. If you’d like to request the new reading list, you may do so here.
In addition to the CF and ECC First Line Supervisor reading list update, the PSUP series’ (301/302/303) reading list also experienced an update. Unlike the other two tests, it does not require any items to be replaced.
Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns about this update.