美国总统拜登任命劳伦-麦克弗兰为全国劳工关系委员会主席
美国总统拜登任命劳伦-麦克弗兰为全国劳工关系委员会主席。McFerran自2014年12月起在该委员会任职。另据新闻报道，拜登解雇了NLRB的总顾问。
麦克弗兰在一份声明中说："我期待着 全国劳工关系委员会 工作的新篇章，加倍努力为该法案的目标服务--'鼓励集体谈判的实践和程序，……保护工人行使充分的结社自由'。"
她的任期将于2024年12月到期。
在担任NLRB之前，McFerran是参议院健康、教育、劳工和养老金委员会的首席劳工顾问。她此前还曾在该委员会担任前爱荷华州参议员汤姆-哈金（Tom Harkin）手下的副参谋长。
NLRB的成员还包括：John Ring（曾任主席）、Marvin Kaplan和William Emanuel。一个董事会成员席位空缺。
去年2月，NLRB曾发布了一项涵盖联合雇佣身份的最终规则，推翻了奥巴马时期NLRB在2015年作出的布朗宁-费里斯裁决。
据Politico报道，拜登还解雇了特朗普任命的NLRB总法律顾问Peter Robb，因为Robb拒绝了辞职的请求。
英文：
President Biden named Lauren McFerran as chairman of the National Labor Relations board. McFerran has served on the board since December 2014. Separately, Biden fired the NLRB’s general counsel, according to news reports.
In a statement, McFerran said “I look forward to this new chapter in the board’s work, redoubling our efforts to serve the act’s goals — ‘encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and … protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association.’”
Her term expires in December 2024.
Prior to serving on the NLRB, McFerran was chief labor counsel for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. She also previously served the committee as deputy staff director under former Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
The NLRB also comprises John Ring, who previously served as chairman; Marvin Kaplan; and William Emanuel. One board member seat is vacant.
Last February, the NLRB had released a final rule covering joint employment status, reversing the 2015 Browning-Ferris ruling by the Obama-era NLRB.
Biden also fired NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, a Trump appointee, after Robb refused a request to resign, Politico reported.
Board Member
Lauren McFerran served as a Member of the NLRB from December 17, 2014 until December 16, 2019. On July 29, 2020, the Senate confirmed her renomination as a Board Member for a term expiring on December 16, 2024.
On January 20, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden named Ms. McFerran Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
Previous to her appointment to the NLRB, Ms. McFerran served as Chief Labor Counsel for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP Committee) and had also served the Committee as Deputy Staff Director under Senator Tom Harkin. She began on the HELP Committee as Senior Labor Counsel for Senator Ted Kennedy. Before her work in the United States Senate, Ms. McFerran was an associate at Bredhoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C. and served as a law clerk for Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ms. McFerran received a B.A. from Rice University and a J.D. from Yale Law School.
资讯
2021年01月21日
资讯
硅谷猎头谈：在美国不要问这20个非法面试问题，给面试官提个醒作者：@硅谷猎头Tom Zhang
近年来，中美两国在经济、科技和文化领域的交流越来越广泛和深入。很多中国公司来美国招聘人才，或者设立公司开展业务。在美国面试候选人的过程中，面试官要特别小心，注意不要违法美国联邦和各州的法律和法规。下面是在美国非法的20个面试问题。
你上一份工作的工资是多少？你能提供现在公司的薪资证明吗？
最近几年美国已经有18个州立法，禁止雇主在面试中问候选人的薪酬历史 (Salary History Ban)。这些州包括加利福尼亚、纽约、夏威夷、佐治亚、弗吉尼亚、华盛顿特区、犹他、肯塔基、伊利诺伊、马里兰、马萨诸塞、密苏里、新泽西、阿拉巴马、特拉华、科罗拉多、北卡罗琳娜、南卡洛琳娜、俄亥俄等。
制定这条法律的内涵是让雇主同工同酬，按岗定薪。美国有关数据显示，职场女性的工资低于相同岗位的男性，而且每次换工作的时候，新雇主总是参考上一份工作的工资，导致女性的薪酬一直相对较低。
当然，虽然面试时不能问候选人过去的工资，询问薪酬期望是可以的，比如问：你期望这份工作的薪酬范围是多少？
你是美国公民吗？
一些朋友可能感到奇怪，为什么这个问题不能问。因为美国是一个移民国家，有来自世界各地的移民，有的已经入籍成为美国公民，也有的没有入籍，拿着自己国家的护照，凭借绿卡或者工作签证在美国工作。美国平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）禁止雇主歧视员工的原居住国家/国籍（national origin, country of origin）。面试中可以问的是：你在美国可以合法工作吗？
你是香港人/台湾人？
一些中国大陆来的面试官在面试时遇到到华人候选人，感到很亲切，也可能是处于好奇，喜欢问这个问题。其实这个问题涉及移民来源，也是不能问的。候选人是哪里人，与工作无关。
如果面试官问了这个问题，可能有什么风险呢？风险是如果你没有录用这名来自香港或台湾的候选人，他可以控告你歧视，因为你在面试的过程中问他是否是香港人/台湾人，他回答是，所以你没有录用他。
你从哪个国家来美国的？你是在哪里出生的？
出生地(birth place) 问题涉及原居住国家（ country of origin），面试中不能问，否则涉嫌歧视。因为候选人是来自哪个国家的移民，与工作本身无关。
你的父母是从中国大陆移民来美国的吗？你们家最早是从欧洲来的吗？
这个问题同样涉及原居住国家/国籍（national origin），不能问。三毛作词的《橄榄树》里的有一句歌词，“不要总问我从哪里来，我的故乡在远方“。面试官不能太好奇，人家祖先从哪里来到美国，和你有啥关系。
英语是你的母语吗？你的母语是什么？
除了特别的工作岗位比如翻译，这个母语问题也涉及候选人的原居住国家/国籍（national origin）。候选人的母语是不是英语，和工作岗位本身无关，只要他/她的英语沟通能力符合岗位要求就可以。
你是哪一年高中毕业的？你什么时候大学毕业的？
美国联邦劳动法严格禁止年龄歧视，上面两个问题的答案中可以猜测出候选人的年龄，因为一般人正常是18岁高中毕业，如果是本科学历，再加4年，就是 22岁，所以面试时不能问候选人是哪一年高中/大学毕业的。
你多大年纪了？你是哪一年出生的？
这样赤裸裸地问候选人的年龄，更是不行。国内有的招聘广告上要求候选人的年龄不能超过 35岁，这在美国是违法的，风险很大。
你打算什么时候退休？
候选人何时退休和工作岗位本身没有任何联系，这个问题也不能问。美国二战后，从1946年至1964年，这18年间出生的人口高达7800万，被称为婴儿潮（baby boom），这些人现在也到了退休的年龄，属于敏感的求职人群。
你结婚了吗？你是单身吗？
候选人的婚姻状况(Marital status)，与工作岗位无关，面试中也不能问，否则可能涉嫌歧视。
你最近打算要小孩吗？你什么时候打算要小孩？
美国平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）禁止雇主歧视候选人是否怀孕和子女状况，这个问题面试中不能问。国内有些公司不喜欢聘用未婚或已婚未育的女性候选人，他们认为入职后可能因为生孩子而耽误工作。已婚已育成了加分项。
你有孩子吗？你有几个孩子？小孩几岁了？
面试中不要拉家常，这些问题都不要问，因为与工作岗位的要求无关。
你是共和党还是民主党？
美国平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）禁止雇主歧视候选人的政治派别和宗教信仰。这个问题面试中不能问。
上次总统选举，你投票选的是特朗普，还是希拉里？2020 总统大选，你会选特朗普吗？
这个问题涉及候选人的政治倾向，面试中不能问，否则可能涉嫌歧视。
你周末去教会吗？你是基督徒吗？你信耶稣吗？
这个问题涉及候选人的宗教信仰，面试中不能问，否则可能涉嫌歧视。
你在美国买房子了吗？你现在住的房子是租的还是买的？
是否拥有住房，与工作岗位无关，面试中不要问这个问题，否则可能涉嫌歧视。
你买汽车了吗？
除非你在招聘司机或者送外卖的岗位，否则候选人是否拥有汽车，与工作岗位无关，面试中不要问。
你之前在工作中受过伤吗？身体或精神方面有残障吗？
身体的残障(disability) 话题也是面试中禁止提问的。《美国残疾人法》（Americans with Disabilities Act ）保护身体上有残障的人士在就业、上学和参与社会活动等方面的平等机会。
你的身高和体重是多少？
除非特别的工作岗位，身高和体重也是面试中禁止问的问题，否则可能涉嫌歧视，比如你在面试中问了一个体重超重的候选人体重是多少，后来没有录用他，他可能控告你歧视他身体胖。
你为什么退伍？
退伍军人也是美国平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）保护的一个类别，面试中不能询问候选人退伍的原因。
总结一下，美国是一个多元化的移民国家，有很多不同种族、肤色、宗教信仰等人群，联邦法律强调工作机会平等。面试不是拉家常，不要问东问西，问些与工作岗位无关的问题。面试官不要好奇心太强，好奇心害死人。如果实在想说点别的，可以谈谈天气、体育之类的安全话题。
作者简介：@硅谷猎头 Tom Zhang，张琦博士，硅谷资深人才专家，在中美高端人才的研究、引进和管理方面有丰富的实践经验。作为特斯拉电动汽车公司在亚太区的第一个 HR，他协助组建了最早的亚太区团队。曾经在 Google 总部和腾讯负责高端人才的搜索工作。多次作为客座嘉宾，为沃顿商学院、长江商学院、清华大学、中国人民大学、浙江大学、上海交通大学、武汉大学、新加坡南洋理工大学等学员分享硅谷的人才与创新，曾应邀在海尔、美的、滴滴等公司总部讲课。曾任教于美国加州圣荷西州立大学计算机系，在浙江大学获得工学博士学位。
新浪微博链接 www.weibo.com/youhire
The Salary History Ban: Your Guide to Dealing with This Dreaded Interview Question--GUSTO
It’s the interview question that makes millions of employers and candidates shudder. No, it isn’t about experience, references, or culture fit… not even about career growth expectations. It’s about (eek!) salary history.
Not the easiest thing to ask for, right? But employers rely on it as a way of understanding the market rate for specific roles and gauging an applicant’s skill level. It’s important to remember that there’s lots of baggage that goes along with asking for someone’s salary history—baggage that affects both the candidate and employer.
Here we’ll cover best practices for making sure your company complies with the new salary history laws, including an overview of where it’s active so you can see if it applies to you in the first place.
Let’s break it down.
What is the salary history ban?
Imagine you’re conducting a job interview. It’s going great, and you want to shift the conversation toward salary negotiations. Several things are running through your mind, like keeping the candidate excited about the role and staying within budget. So you hold your breath and ask the dreaded question: “How much are you currently being paid?”
Here’s the dilemma. If the candidate answers the question, they could risk anchoring their future compensation to their current salary—whether or not they’re being paid appropriately. Or if they refuse to answer, there’s a chance you may assume they make less than they actually do or even find them uncooperative.
In a survey of over 15,000 respondents, PayScale found that women who didn’t offer up their salary history were paid 1.8 percent less than women who did. On the flip side, men who didn’t reveal their previous salary were paid 1.2 percent more. This double standard between men and women may be the result of gender bias, according to PayScale. Clearly, something isn’t working.
The proposed solution? Ban the question altogether.
The salary history ban makes it illegal for employers to ask candidates how they are currently or were formerly compensated at work. What qualifies as “compensation” is different for every state and city (we’ll cover that part soon).
Why it’s being rolled out
Gender pay inequality continues to be a problem in the United States. A Glassdoor study showed that women still earn 76 cents to the dollar men earn.
The salary history ban is trying to tackle one part of the problem: to prevent current or previous pay inequality from following a person throughout their career. Determining a candidate’s compensation based on their salary history can perpetuate existing wage inequalities that are the result of gender bias or discrimination. So, some think it’s best to take salary history out of the equation altogether.
Where the salary history ban currently exists
Remember that this isn’t a nationwide ban. Below are some of the cities and states that have enacted the salary history ban so far:
California: Starting Jan. 1st, 2018, employers can’t ask for an applicant’s compensation history, either in writing or verbally. Compensation includes both salary and benefits. If reasonably requested, employers need to also provide a pay scale for the position in question.
Delaware: Since Dec. 14th, 2017, employers haven’t been allowed to ask for an applicant’s compensation history until after a job offer has been made and accepted by the applicant. Compensation is defined as monetary wages, benefits, and other methods people get paid.
Massachusetts: Starting July 1st, 2018, employers can’t screen applicants based on compensation history or ask for it. Compensation includes benefits, salary, and other types of payment. Employers are also banned from getting the information from the applicant’s current or former employer until after an offer has been officially accepted. Instead, employers have to publish salary ranges based on qualifications and skills related to the role.
New Orleans: As of June 2017, city agencies aren’t allowed to dig around for applicants’ pay histories.
New York City: As of October 31st, 2017, employers are barred from asking or searching for an applicant’s compensation history. This includes wages, benefits, and other forms of compensation.
Oregon: Starting January 1st, 2019, employers can’t ask for compensation history or screen applicants based on it. Compensation includes wages, salary, bonuses, benefits, fringe benefits, and equity-based payment. If a company violates this law, employees are owed unpaid wages.
Philadelphia: Despite being the first U.S. city to pass such a law, the bill is temporarily on hold because of a lawsuit filed by a local business. Therefore, it’s not currently enforced.
Pittsburgh: As of March 2017, city agencies cannot ask applicants for their pay histories.
Puerto Rico: As of March 2017, employers can’t ask about an applicant’s compensation history unless the applicant offers the information on their own, or a job offer has been offered and accepted by the candidate.
San Francisco: Starting July 1st, 2018, employers can’t ask applicants—contractors and subcontractors included—for their compensation history. Employers also can’t disclose a current or former employee’s salary history without that person’s explicit permission.
So what does this mean for you?
If your business isn’t located in any of the cities or states above, you’re in the clear (as of December 2017). If it does, there are a couple actions you should take.
First, review your hiring process. At no point should you require an applicant to disclose their salary history in writing or in an interview. Also, make sure related sections aren’t lurking in any internal hiring documents, like interview question templates or reference emails. Lastly, don’t rely on an applicant’s salary history, even if voluntarily disclosed, when determining whether or not to extend a job offer.
(Re)train your staff on the new law. Make sure your team is aligned on new hiring requirements and which questions are and are not appropriate. Double-check the statutes under your state or city’s law and ingrain it in your team.
Refrain from releasing salary information for past employees. Don’t release a former employee’s salary history without written authorization from that employee. There may be some exceptions to this rule, such as when salaries are publicly available or part of a collective bargaining agreement. Check your local and state laws to see what exceptions may apply.
A shift in mindset
Salary negotiations are uncomfortable for everyone involved, and gaining the candidate’s trust throughout the process is key to setting them up to be a rock star on your team. The good part? Simple language tweaks can easily achieve this.
For example, instead of asking for salary history, tell the candidate outright what the salary range is for the role, and then see if they want to continue the conversation. Keep in mind that the gender pay gap can still rear its ugly head even if people know the average salary range for the role, found a study from Hired. On average, women tend to ask for less than men, regardless of their experience.
The takeaway? Someone’s salary history should never affect their compensation in future roles. Before you ever bring your candidate into the office, research compensation standards for the role you’d like to fill and consider their skills, background, and education to determine a final offer. Take this data-driven approach and be fair and transparent; you’re bound to gain your candidate’s trust throughout this nerve-wracking (and exciting!) process.
About Tiffany Durinski
Tiffany Durinski is a content marketer, writer, and explorer of the world. Her mission is to get people fired up about technology through captivating storytelling.
资讯
2018年07月04日
资讯
在美国裁员中的年龄歧视问题-美国《反年龄歧视法》禁止企业对40岁及以上的员工进行年龄歧视
美国《反年龄歧视法》（The Age Discrimination in Employment Act）禁止企业对40岁及以上的员工进行年龄歧视。最近，两家高科技企业，Intel和IBM，都因为裁员中涉及年龄歧视而遭到公平就业机会委员会的调查。
Intel的情况是，在2016年的一波裁员中，2300名被裁员工年龄的中位数是49岁，而留下来的同行，中位数只有42岁。因此有员工已经向公平就业机会委员会投诉。按照程序，委员会将审核Intel关于裁员的法律文件，来确定员工一方是否有足够的证据，从而代表员工向法院起诉。如果委员会认为不构成年龄歧视，员工一方仍可以单独起诉公司。
而IBM的情况是，从2014年开始，IBM已经裁减了2万多名40岁及40岁以上的员工，占到了全部裁员人数的60%。委员会同样在调查IBM，但是IBM否认了年龄歧视的指控，表示公司是根据绩效和其他方法确定裁减人员名单。
《纽约时报》在之前的一篇报道指出[1]，这几年，向委员会投诉的年龄歧视的案件越来越多，2015年有20144件，2016年则达到21000件，已经占到了委员会全部受理案件的四分之一。然而，委员会真正认为证据充足并起诉到法院的案件数量却很少，比如2015年只有86件，低起诉率的其中一个原因是，最高院通过Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc[2]一案，在举证责任方面为劳动者胜诉设立了很高的门槛。
1989年，最高院曾在Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins一案中为混合动机案件设立了举证责任规则。混合动机指雇主的决定混合了合法的动机（比如员工绩效）和非法的动机（比如员工的性别和种族）。此时，雇员需要首先举证她因为雇主的非法动机（也就是该案中的性别因素）受到了歧视，此时举证责任转移到雇主，雇主需要证明，即使没有性别因素，雇主也会做出一样的决定。
但是在2009年，在涉及年龄歧视问题的Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc一案中，最高院认为，《反年龄歧视法》独立于《民权法案》，Price Waterhouse一案确立的举证规则也并不当然适用于年龄歧视的情况。通过仔细阅读法律条文，最高院认为，在年龄歧视案件中，劳动者首先必须证明年龄是雇主决策的主要因素（but-for，如果没有该事实的存在，事件就不会发生），这个举证要求不可谓不高。2009年，国会曾提出Protection Older Workers against Discrimination Act草案，要求年龄歧视案件的举证规则回归Price Waterhouse规则，但是因为受到商业群体等反对，草案最终没有被通过。
据报道，委员会的代理主席Victoria Lipnic已经将反年龄歧视作为委员会的优先处理的工作议题，且看委员会将如何处理这两起年龄歧视案件。
[1] Shownthe Door, Older Workers Find Bias Hard to Prove, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/dealbook/shown-the-door-older-workers-find-bias-hard-to-prove.html
[2] 557 U.S. 167
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
扫一扫
添加客服
