ORC Sightlines

November 2008

In this issue:

Troubled Economy Impacts Support for Dual Career Couples Abroad

ORC Worldwide’s 2008 Dual Careers and International Assignments Survey, just published, found that the downturn in the economy and demographic changes in the workforce are greatly hindering the efforts of multinational employers to manage international assignments for employees with working spouses. In the current economic climate, organizations are particularly mindful of cost constraints but have to balance these against the need to attract and retain the best talent in order to remain globally competitive.

The economy is also a concern for dual career couples, who, when faced with the decision about whether one of them should accept an overseas assignment, are worried primarily about the loss of a second income and pension continuity if the accompanying spouse cannot work in the host country. The loss of social contacts and career opportunities are also of concern.

Nevertheless, economic pressures have forced employers to reduce financial assistance given dual career assignees. Perhaps in connection with this trend, for the first time since ORC Worldwide began its series of Dual Careers and International Assignments surveys in 1990, the percentage of female assignees in responding companies has gone down, dropping to 13% from 16.5% in 2005. This may reflect lack of commitment to gender diversity or the unwillingness of couples in the current economic climate to accept international assignments if the career of the male partner might be jeopardized.

For some of the responding companies, alternative assignment types, such as short-term and commuter assignments, have not provided a solution. While they may help to overcome dual career issues, they simply do not meet organizational needs in the same way as regular long-term assignments.

You may order the complete report online for $300.

Beyond Representation: Selecting Useful Diversity Metrics

Collecting good measurements of people management processes is always a tricky business. By their nature, metrics tend to be easier to establish for disciplines that deal with things that can be counted, such as dollars or customers or manufactured units. It’s not surprising, then, that, in most companies, diversity metrics concentrate almost exclusively on representation – that is, the degree to which various demographic groups are represented in the workforce, in specific talent pools, or among those who are promoted or who leave the organization.

Representation measurements have much to tell us about how diverse our workforces are and whether all employees have equal opportunity to succeed. But they do not offer much direct information about underlying causes for disparities or about what should be changed, which interventions are succeeding, or whether and how the organization is reaping the benefits of diversity and inclusion.

Members of ORC’s Workforce Opportunity Network (WON) discussed diversity and inclusion metrics at their October meeting, hosted by The McGraw-Hill Companies in New York. To start the session, participants listed the metrics used in their companies on four flip charts, one for each of the following types of measurements:

Not surprisingly, the demographics sheet was full while fewer companies listed program effectiveness or employee perception measures, and none indicated that they measured the business impact of their diversity efforts.

Metrics might serve a number of purposes, from starting the conversation about what diversity means to driving accountability processes. But ORC consultant Michal Fineman argued that two fundamental criteria should be applied to the choice of any metric:

Fineman suggested several steps diversity professionals can take to design relevant diversity and inclusion measurement schemes that go beyond representation:

The Workforce Opportunity Network brings together diversity leaders in U.S. companies and subsidiaries to share best practices and expand their knowledge of diversity and inclusion issues as well as U.S. equal opportunity law and regulatory requirements. For more information about WON, contact Liz MacGillivray or Nita Beecher.

Systemic Discrimination—The Next Challenge for Employers

In last month’s first-ever joint meeting between ORC’s Workforce Opportunity Network and Employment Law & Litigation Group, members and representatives of the U.S. government discussed the increased focus of federal agencies on systemic discrimination.

Kathy Bissell, Associate Solicitor, Civil Rights & Labor-Management Division, Department of Labor, explained how her client, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, has focused its limited resources on systemic discrimination in hiring and compensation. The result has been that OFCCP has increased its recovery from $28 million in 2001 to above $50 million in 2007. Although OFCCP’s initiatives concerning Internet applicants and compensation have received more publicity, Bissell pointed out that most of the recovery has been from “bread-and-butter” hiring cases. She warned employers not to assume that employment policies are being followed and properly implemented.

Robert D. Rose, Supervisory Trial Attorney representing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman, discussed the differences in the way the OFCCP and EEOC approach discrimination. Unlike OFCCP, which can initiate compliance evaluations, EEOC generally has to wait until a discrimination charge is filed before it can investigate systemic discrimination. The agency has one other option, though: a “commissioner charge”, which can be filed without a specific allegation of discrimination from an employee or an applicant for employment. Commissioner charges have been used very rarely in recent years, but Rose believes the agency will make more use of them as part of the systemic discrimination initiative. EEOC has also been more focused on reviewing individual charges to determine if there are indications of systemic discrimination as well. Rose advised his audience that they should not make it hard for the EEOC to get information and that they should be very careful in situations where retaliation could be alleged.

David Fortney, partner of FortneyScott in Washington, D.C., and former Acting Solicitor of Labor, discussed the recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office that criticized gender pay discrimination enforcement by OFCCP and EEOC. The study was commissioned by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), among others, on Equal Pay Day, the day in April when women’s pay catches up with men’s from the prior year. The report, issued in August, was very critical of how the agencies tracked and reported their progress in this area. Both Rose and Bissell indicated that their agencies had responded to the report.

Fortney predicts the new Congress will focus immediate attention on pay equity issues as well as other areas of enforcement Democrats believe have been neglected under the Bush administration. Congress is expected to pass two gender pay discrimination bills, which President-elect Obama has said he will sign: the Fair Pay Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The increased attention from Congress on pay equity issues and the change in administration will mean increased focus by the agencies as well. Fortney recommends that employers perform self-audits on their compliance with federal statutes and ensure that any major problems are corrected or explained prior to mid-2009.

The Employment Law & Litigation Group (ELLG) brings together in-house employment lawyers in Fortune 500 companies to share innovative responses and practical solutions to complex legal problems facing their companies. For more information on ELLG, contact Nita Beecher.

 

Related Links
Sightlines Archive