Indeed 职业定义中的年龄歧视引发的轩然大波 The Uproar Over Ageism in Career Definitions by Indeed最近的Indeed报告将45岁定义为“职业晚期”、55岁以上为“职业衰退”，引发了对年龄歧视的批评。专家如Lyndsey Simpson强调，这种标签不仅有害，还忽视了老年工作者的潜力。尽管该报告旨在描述职业阶段，但其用语引起了广泛反响，最终导致信息图的删除。像Elizabeth Isele这样的倡导者强调，多代工作力的好处，如更强的人才管道和增强的工作稳定性。
最近，Indeed的一份报告因将45岁定义为“职业晚期”、55岁以上定义为“衰退”而被批评为“年龄歧视”。来自Freelance Informer的报道指出，55Redefined Group的创始人兼首席执行官、全球老龄化人口价值专家Lyndsey Simpson在LinkedIn上发文，批评该平台发布了她所视为“公然的年龄歧视和不负责任的内容”。
Indeed的信息图将45岁定义为“职业晚期”、55岁以上为“衰退”，同时将35-45岁称为“职业中期”。根据Freelance Informer的报道，该信息图在多次投诉后已被撤下。
Simpson表示：“在55岁以上，数百万人正在他们选择的职业中找到自己的步伐，或者正在重新技能培训，重新回到劳动力市场，或者开始新的企业。”
Simpson认为，Indeed的指南延续了有害的刻板印象，削弱了老年工作者的潜力。她敦促公司认识到老年工作者的价值，并起来反对过时的偏见。
Next Up招聘机构的首席执行官Victoria Tomlinson说：“感谢成千上万分享、评论和发送电子邮件的人——Indeed已经撤下了这篇文章。”
尽管在Tomlinson的评论之后该图形仍可见一段时间，但现已被删除。
全球经验丰富的企业家精神研究所创始人Elizabeth Isele为Indeed的报告做出了贡献。她在报告中说：“多代工作力具有明显的竞争优势，原因有很多。立即，雇主就能开辟更强大、更广泛的人才渠道。你会得到一个更大的想法基因池。提高你的劳动力的连续性和稳定性。并在该劳动力中保留知识。”Isele指出，预计到2030年，55岁以上的工作者将增加1.5亿。
头条
2024年09月03日
头条
Happy Labor DayHappy Labor Day to all Chinese HR professionals in North America! Your dedication and hard work significantly enrich our workplaces and drive the future of HR. #LaborDay #ChineseHR #NACSHR #HappyLaborDay
Happy Labor Day
头条
2024年09月01日
头条
Why it’s time for HR Business Partners 2.0文章中强调了人力资源商业伙伴（HRBP）从通才到战略顾问的演变。最初旨在将人力资源战略与商业目标对齐，HRBP经常被日常运营任务分散注意力。Kathi Enderes 主张通过加强培训、指导和系统性的人力资源方法来复兴这一角色，这种方法整合了商业咨询能力。她引用了TomTom和乐高集团的例子，这些公司已成功地将其HRBP角色转变为更具战略性、数据驱动和有效促进业务增长和创新的角色。文章指出，只有11%的公司完全整合了这种模式，但见证了更高的增长和创新。
Kathi Enderes的观点强调了在当今由AI驱动的市场中，将HRBP转变为战略顾问不仅是一种改变，更是一种必需。
Global Industry Analyst Kathi Enderes, SVP of Research at The Josh Bersin Company, sees the need to clear the dust off a 30-year great idea of HRBPs.
Expert Insight
HRBPs are a crucial part of the success of the HR functions, and organizations as a whole.
However, as Kathi Enders, SVP of Research at The Josh Bersin Company, shares in this exclusive OpEd, they need to move from being a jack of all trades to becoming a business savvy consultant.
Here's how to achieve this!
Thirty years ago, HR embraced a groundbreaking concept: the HR Business Partner (HRBP).
The idea was that these professionals would collaborate closely with business leaders and line managers to align people strategies with the organization’s broader business objectives.
This remains a crucial concept and a contribution that organizations desperately need.
The problem is that somewhere along the way, we lost sight of the strategic part of the equation.
As a result, we’ve ended up misusing resources and devolving the role of the HRBP into a much more tactical, and less globally impactful, function.
In fact, the HRBP role is the most critical, yet the most misunderstood, of all HR jobs.
But by refreshing and modernizing the original concept and investing in HRBP capabilities, we can revitalize the role and get it back to its even more strategic purpose.
How we got here, and where we have to go next
We introduced HRBPs when we transitioned to the tiered HR service delivery model in the 1990s.
Originally, the HRBP was envisioned as a crucial connector between the various HR Centers of Excellence (COE) and the business.
But before too long, a lot of operational tasks were loaded onto their plates by business managers who needed immediate assistance with less strategic, day-to-day issues—think, “I need to hire someone but don’t know how to submit the requisition in the system,” or “I need to transfer someone: can you help me with that?”
When this happens frequently, the HRBP unintentionally becomes more of an HR workflow admin assistant.
While this helps solve short-term issues, it detracts from the original strategic intent of the role.
Consequently, many HRBPs end up not working “at top of license”—acting more like HR generalists than the specialized, strategic partners they could be.
To get things on track and empower HRBPs to grow into the strategic role you hired them for (and what they came on board to do), look to:
accept and encourage them to become business consultants, not just advisors or general admins, and support them in developing strong relationships with business leaders and the rest of HR
build the level of HR business partner capabilities they need to do that
organize their roles in new ways, and communicate clearly how you expect them to operate and contribute.
Leading the development of this critical in-house resource
It’s important to emphasize that all three elements noted above are crucial to the success of HRBPs – and they are interconnected.
Implementing just one recommendation won’t achieve the desired outcomes.
Equally importantly, this isn’t about increasing headcount costs; it’s about enhancing the training and utilization of the people you already have.
Indeed, in some organizations, there are significant numbers of HRBPs; myself and The Josh Bersin Company have worked with organizations where there are 200 or more in place.
So, the mission of the CHRO is to develop them, help them build the right relationships across the business, give them the support they need, and consciously organize them for success.
For capability development, some of that investment will go towards formal learning programs.
However, a significant portion will also be dedicated to facilitating mentorships and fostering connections.
This approach works best by consciously placing HRBPs in project roles where they can expand their knowledge and gain valuable exposure.
How to move to next-gen HRBP ground-level support
A Systemic HR approach, a concept The Josh Bersin Company introduced to the market last year, can be the driver of transformation here.
Why? Because by its very definition, Systemic HR transforms HR from a siloed service provider into an integrated, consultative function that tackles a company’s most pressing business challenges.
By doing so, the HRBP evolves from an HR ‘jack of all trades’ to a highly-skilled, data- and technology-savvy business consultant.
According to our research, only 11% of companies operate a truly Systemic HR function, so there is huge opportunity here – and these organizations have much higher company growth, delight their customers, innovate more, and create a great place to work.
Next-generation HRBPs can accelerate the journey towards Systemic HR and drive successful business outcomes.
However, to achieve this, you must be prepared to both pose and find answers to questions such as:
What are my new-style HRBPs’ specific accountabilities?
What does success look like?
How will our newly-energized and skilled-up HRBPs interact with managers and leaders?
Evidence from front-rank organizations, like TomTom, a geolocation technology company that specializes in mapping, navigation, and real-time traffic information services, suggests a move to a more integrated, fully data-driven, Systemic HR framework can deliver significant benefits.
In its case, TomTom has strategically restructured its HRBP team, moving away from a traditional, rigid HR model to a more fluid, team-based approach.
Its HRBPs are now organized into cross-functional teams that operate with flat hierarchies, allowing for quicker decision-making and more responsive HR practices.
Its HRBPs also now sit on the HR strategy and strategic business partnering team, which also includes HR strategy, people analytics and insights, HR portfolio management, and organizational development.
Working across this group, collaborating with the business, and supporting the highest-priority initiatives makes the HR function much more impactful.
Through this organizational model, TomTom ensures that its HRBPs are well-equipped to support the organization’s dynamic needs, driving effectiveness and efficiency.
Achieving ‘Master Builder’ HRBP capability
TomTom is not the only one looking at a new way to utilize HRBPs. Famous Danish toy leader The LEGO Group has taken a proactive approach to building HRBP capabilities.
Specifically, it implemented a series of initiatives aimed at enhancing business acumen, leadership skills, and understanding of complex organizational dynamics.
This includes specialized training programs to equip HRBPs with skills in change management, organization design, and coaching and developing leaders.
This new approach to the HRBP also centers on supporting their participation in cross-functional projects so as to develop a deeper understanding of its multiple business units and achieve a truly holistic view of the organization.
Doing so broadens their perspective and enhances their ability to contribute to strategic discussions and initiatives. This is an approach many other organizations can and should explore, as it’s a great way to develop full-stack HRBP capabilities.
In summary, HRBPs are incredibly important to organizational success, but along the way, we lost sight of how to maximize their potential fully.
As businesses accelerate under the influence of AI and other factors, this oversight becomes a luxury we cannot afford.
Therefore, the CHRO must prioritize developing HRBPs to enable their business to outperform competitors, nurture talent, and cultivate the innovation-driven organization necessary to thrive and endure.
原文来自：https://www.unleash.ai/strategy-and-leadership/why-its-time-for-hr-business-partners-2-0/
头条
2024年08月31日
头条
Care.com因夸大工作数量和收入，被诉向FTC支付850万美元和解金美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）对Care.com采取了法律行动，原因是该公司在其平台上关于照护工作的可用性和潜在收入的广告中存在误导性陈述。这些广告经常夸大了工作的数量和可能的收入，同时还使用户难以取消他们的订阅。根据和解协议，Care.com必须支付850万美元用于消费者退款，并且要求公司未来在做出收入声明时必须实事求是，并简化订阅取消流程。此举不仅保护了消费者权益，也促进了更为诚信的市场环境。
近日，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）与在线护理服务平台Care.com达成了一项重要的和解协议。此次和解，Care.com将支付850万美元，用于赔偿因其误导性广告和复杂的取消流程受损的消费者。
FTC指控Care.com在其平台上发布的护理工作的可用性和潜在收入方面存在误导性信息。此外，Care.com的订阅取消流程复杂，迫使消费者无法轻易取消服务，从而违反了消费者权益。
对此，Care.com表示，尽管公司对FTC的指控持有异议，并有信心通过法律途径争取正当权益，但最终决定选择和解，以避免长时间的诉讼消耗公司资源。Care.com强调，和解不代表对FTC指控的认可，公司的主要目标仍是为美国家庭及看护工作者提供高质量的服务。
Care.com回应称，他们一直致力于透明和公平地展示工作机会和薪资信息，任何误导消费者的行为都不符合公司的业务宗旨。关于FTC提出的取消订阅问题，Care.com承诺将进一步简化流程，确保消费者能够轻松管理其订阅。
此外，此次事件也引起了业界对护理经济透明度和公平性的广泛关注。随着护理服务需求的增加，消费者对透明度和公平交易的要求也日益增强。业内专家指出，此类和解案例可能会推动行业内更多的自我监管和改进，从而提高服务质量和消费者满意度。
长期以来，Care.com已在全美各地提供服务，帮助数百万家庭找到合适的看护资源。公司表示，尽管面临FTC的指控和和解，但会继续扩展其服务，确保为更多家庭和看护工作者创造价值。
FTC方面也表达了对和解结果的满意，认为这是保护消费者权益的重要一步。FTC表示将继续监督市场，确保所有企业都能遵守公平竞争和诚实宣传的原则。
总之，此次和解不仅解决了Care.com与FTC之间的法律纠纷，也为护理服务行业树立了一个公平交易和消费者保护的标杆。未来，Care.com及同行业的其他公司可能需要在确保广告真实性和提供消费者友好服务方面做出更多努力。
附录Care.com 的回应新闻稿
CARE.COM RESPONSE TO FTC AGREEMENT
At Care.com, we put our members first, providing valuable tools and resources to help families find care and caregivers find jobs.
Though we were fully prepared to litigate for the next several years if necessary and confident in our position, we decided to enter into an agreement with the FTC to resolve this matter now and keep our focus on helping our customers.
This settlement is in no way a validation of the FTC’s claims. In fact, the settlement requires no material change in how Care.com serves those who use its platform.
At a time when the care economy is under assault, when families are draining their savings to afford child care, when caregivers are leaving the profession and when our growing senior population is facing astronomical long term care costs, it is disappointing that the FTC has chosen to attack trusted businesses who are part of the solution.
We have been in business nearly 20 years, available in every state and every town in America. That kind of longevity and scale comes from putting customers first every day; helping millions of families access the care they need and connecting millions of caregivers with meaningful, well-paying jobs.
In response to the FTC’s press release, we wanted to clarify a few facts:
The presentation of available job opportunities: We would not be in business for long if we manipulated optics, inflated statistics and attempted to trick our customers. We have found that many care seekers prefer to see a level of interest in their job post before committing to a premium membership, and our basic service tier offers this “try before you buy” opportunity. When a seeker sees the array of caregivers available, the commitment to premium membership—which enables seekers to contact and hire caregivers—follows naturally.
Earnings data: Care.com does not set rates and we never make promises about earnings. The data we provide about posted rates is based solely on what families say they are willing to pay, which varies significantly. Given the size of our platform, the potential earnings data we provide is at scale, and helps maintain a balanced and fair market for care.
Cancellation process: Families and caregivers can and do cancel memberships at any time and for a variety of reasons, including having successfully found a caregiver or a job. Our members can easily cancel if they wish, and we are further streamlining the process for doing so. Cancellation instructions for desktop and mobile users are included in every confirmation email upon sign up, accessible in our Help Center and available through our Customer Care support team which also offers 24 hour support via chat.
Given the care crisis in America, we believe our collective energy as a country should be on solutions, not nitpicking attacks. Care.com intends to keep our focus on what matters: American families and the hardworking caregivers who support them.
头条
2024年08月26日
头条
德州联邦法官全国范围内推翻联邦贸易委员会禁止竞业限制协议的禁令On August 20, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) nationwide ban on noncompete agreements, ruling that the ban exceeded the agency's statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. This decision, just 15 days before the ban was set to take effect, marks a significant victory for employers, particularly in the healthcare sector, and a setback for medical workers who anticipated increased job mobility and wage growth. The ruling also aligns with concerns from the American Hospital Association and other industry groups regarding the potential disruptive impact of the ban. The FTC is considering an appeal, but the ruling emphasizes the ongoing legal challenges surrounding the agency's authority to regulate noncompete agreements.
德克萨斯州一位联邦法官周二推翻了联邦贸易委员会（FTC）对雇佣合同中竞业限制协议的禁令，裁定该禁令违反了《行政程序法》并超出了该机构的法定权限。
这一裁决适用于全国范围，并在禁令原定于9月4日生效前15天作出。
美国德克萨斯北区地方法院的艾达·布朗法官上个月已经做出裁定，初步禁止FTC的竞业限制禁令，但仅限于本案的原告。
然而，布朗法官在8月20日的决定中完全取消了这一规定，因为她写道，APA“并未考虑针对特定当事方的救济”。
这一决定是对美国商会——全国最大的商业游说团体——的胜利，商会与一家税务公司一起提起了诉讼。
对于医疗行业而言，这一裁决则是喜忧参半。禁令原本被认为可以帮助被限制性合同束缚的医生、护士和其他医疗工作者更容易换工作，并可能促使工资上涨。
据美国医学会称，大约35%到45%的医生受到竞业限制协议的约束。
然而，关于禁令仍有一些悬而未决的问题，包括FTC是否有法律权力颁布此禁令、是否适用于非营利性医院以及它将如何影响并购活动、医生短缺和招聘工作，特别是对较小的地区系统。
强烈反对这一禁令的强大医院游说团体——美国医院协会，对法官的决定表示了赞扬。
“这一规定是监管权力的惊人宣示……更糟糕的是，委员会没有尝试理解它对医院、卫生系统以及他们所服务的患者所产生的破坏性影响，”AHA总法律顾问查德·戈尔德在与Healthcare Dive分享的声明中说。
与此同时，FTC发言人维多利亚·格雷厄姆表示，FTC正在“认真考虑”上诉。
格雷厄姆指出，布朗的裁决并未阻止监管机构通过个案执法来追究过度限制性的竞业限制协议。
今年4月，FTC以3票对2票通过了这项禁令，该禁令将使所有现有的竞业限制协议（除了一些高级管理人员外）不可执行，并禁止签订新的此类合同。两位共和党委员投票反对这一禁令，认为FTC没有国会授权来实施它。
在周二的裁决中，布朗法官认为《联邦贸易委员会法》确实赋予FTC“制定规则以排除不公平竞争方法”的某些权力，但该机构“没有创建实质性规则”的权力，比如竞业限制协议禁令。
这一观点得到了这样一个事实的支持，即国会没有为某些FTC法规的违反规定制裁措施，“这表明缺乏实质性效力”，她说。
布朗还得出结论认为，FTC的禁令在《行政程序法》意义上是任意和反复无常的，因为它不合理地过于宽泛且没有合理解释。
法官表示，该机构未能为其决定禁止所有竞业限制协议而不是针对具体有害协议提供证据。
布朗的裁决与7月23日支持FTC的宾夕法尼亚州联邦法官的裁决相冲突，该法官拒绝阻止禁令。上周，佛罗里达州的一位联邦法官也对禁令发布了有限的禁令，认为FTC可能超越了其法定权限。
这些不同的裁决表明，FTC是否有权禁止竞业限制条款的问题可能会面临上诉审查。
头条
2024年08月24日
头条
【推荐】专注移民及公司法的LYD Law，受邀出席10月北美华人人力资源年会在即将到来的10月北美华人人力资源年会中，LYD Law将与北美华人HR行业专家们齐聚一堂，深入探讨企业在合规管理和员工移民方面面临的挑战与机遇。凭借丰富的法律经验和专业知识，LYD Law致力于为企业提供量身定制的法律服务方案，助力企业稳健发展，保障员工权益。
1. 关于LYD LAW
成立于2015年，LYD LAW坐落于加州硅谷，是一家专注于提供优质移民及公司法律服务的律师事务所。我们专门为企业提供定制的员工签证解决方案，通过先进的软件平台有效减轻人力资源部门的工作负担，并保证对客户疑问的快速准确回应，让您的企业运作更加顺畅。
2. 关于李媛迪Brandy Li （Attorney at LYD Law）
Brandy Li拥有加州以及纽约州律师执照，在美国法学院获得法律博士 (Juris Doctor)学位。李律师曾在新泽西州高等法院担任法官助理, 其后分别供职于纽约和旧金山的大型律师事务所，参与了各类移民类案件的全程办理。她曾成功的在EB5投资移民（直接投资以及区域中心投资），H1B工作签证，EB1A杰出人才移民，L1/EB1C跨国公司经理，家庭移民，婚姻移民等领域为客人取得了满意的结果。李律师连续三年获得美国路透社 Super Lawyers ”超级律师“ Northern California Rising Stars。她曾受邀在2022全美移民律师协会(AILA)年度会议作为杰出人才申请专家授课，并曾担任美国政治播客”选美“客座讲师。
扫码参会：
赞助合作：
Annie Huang （Marketing & Cooperation）
邮箱：nacshr818@gmail.com
National Advertising Division Finds Certain Deel Payroll and HRIS Claims Supported; Recommends Others be Modified or DiscontinuedBBB全国项目的国家广告部（NAD）对Deel公司在其薪资和人力资源信息系统（HRIS）方面的广告声明进行了审查，回应了竞争对手Rippling提出的挑战。NAD认为，Deel的部分声明，如“每年节省高达$20,000”和“行业领先的全球薪资软件”是有依据的。然而，NAD建议修改或停止某些其他声明，特别是关于与Rippling的比较、法律合规性和客户支持的声明。NAD认为，Deel的“本地化”和“内部运营”薪资服务声明需要进一步澄清，并建议调整对Rippling的比较方式。此外，NAD要求停止使用“全球HR市场领导者”的称号，因为没有确凿证据支持这一说法。Deel已表示将遵守NAD的决定，进一步确保其广告的真实性和透明度。此次审查反映了NAD对广告真实性的持续关注，确保消费者能够获得准确的信息，同时促进公平竞争。
In a challenge brought by competitor People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division determined that Deel, Inc., in connection with its Payroll and Human Resource Information System (HRIS), provided a reasonable basis for certain claims, including Deel’s “save up to $20,000 per year” claim and accompanying chart, as well as the claim that Deel has an “industry leading global payroll software.”
New York, NY, Aug. 08, 2024 -- In a challenge brought by competitor People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division determined that Deel, Inc., in connection with its Payroll and Human Resource Information System (HRIS), provided a reasonable basis for certain claims, including Deel’s “save up to $20,000 per year” claim and accompanying chart, as well as the claim that Deel has an “industry leading global payroll software.”
However, the National Advertising Division (NAD) recommended that Deel modify or discontinue certain other claims, including comparative claims versus Rippling’s native payroll software, legal compliance, and customer support.
The parties are human resources and payroll service providers that offer multiple services.
Native and In-House Payroll Claims
Rippling challenged claims about “native” and “in-house” payroll systems that appeared in charts on Deel’s website:
“Payroll service is native and operated in-house in every country – Deel ✓, Rippling X”
“Payroll service is native and operated in-house in every country – Deel ✓ Yes, Rippling X No, they currently use partners in some countries.
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that customers could reasonably take away the message that native payroll includes native payroll software. Further, customers may reasonably take away the message that Rippling does not offer in-house and native payroll in all the countries in which it offers global payroll (outside of employer of record).
Therefore, NAD recommended that Deel modify these claims by clearly and conspicuously defining what “native” means and clarifying that the comparison with Rippling also includes countries where they offer payroll as part of their employer of record services.
Industry-Leading Payroll Claim
Deel claims on its website to have “[i]ndustry leading global payroll software” and, in a smaller font, “Deel is a leader in multi-country payroll and contractor payments, according to G2 user reviews.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that the phrase “global payroll software” means that Deel offers payroll software globally—whether that is in-house or through a third-party. Further, NAD considered the language and the context in which the “industry leading” language appears and concluded the claim does not convey a superlative message. Consumers are likely to take away the message that Deel is among the top in the industry, but not necessarily the best.
Since the record indicates that Deel has significant revenue, market presence, and a large global footprint, and there is no dispute that Deel and Rippling are among the many leaders in the global payroll market, NAD concluded that this claim was not false or misleading.
HRIS Comparative Claims
Rippling challenged claims on Deel’s website that customers can “[s]witch to Deel HR and save up to $20,000 per year.” An accompanying chart below the claim lists seven product features with Rippling and Deel displaying checkmarks for each feature. The chart states that Deel is “Free for companies with less than 200 employees” while Rippling costs “$8 employee/month.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) concluded that because both products offer the touted features, it is not misleading to characterize Deel’s software as having those product features and that the product comparison chart is not misleading.
HRIS Superlative Claims
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that there was no evidence in the record to support an unqualified claim that Deel is #1 in the market. Therefore, NAD recommended that Deel discontinue the claims:
“The market leader in the Global HR space.”
“Build confidence in your compliance with the #1 Global HR platform.”
Preference Claim
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that data relied on by Deel is not a good fit for its claim that “Teams prefer Deel over Rippling for global HR and Payroll” because it did not indicate a preference for one product over another. Accordingly, NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued.
Compliance Claims
Rippling challenged claims about legal compliance that appeared in charts on Deel’s website:
“Network of 200+ local legal hiring experts around the world -- ✓ Yes, Rippling X No”
“Compliance document collection for contractors, on top of EOR, constantly reviewed and updated.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that in context it is reasonable to take away the message that Rippling has an inferior network of legal experts around the world, and it does not offer compliance document collection. Since Deel submitted no evidence in support of these two claims, NAD recommended it discontinue the comparative part of these claims as they relate to Rippling and cease conveying the messages that there are legal risks associated with using Rippling products and that Rippling’s products are not compliant.
NAD noted that nothing in its decision would prevent Deel from advertising its network of local legal hiring experts or comparing its compliance services to Rippling’s so long as they do not claim that Rippling lacks a network of 200+ local legal hiring experts around the world or compliance document collection for contractors.
Customer Support Claims
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that the comparative claim that Rippling does not offer multi-channel support is not false or misleading.
However, NAD concluded that the unqualified claim, “Deel’s support is in-house, reliable, and faster than Rippling” is not supported and recommended that it be discontinued or modified to make clear the circumstances and times when its support would be faster and avoid conveying the message that Rippling’s customer support is unreliable.
Further, NAD determined that Deel’s claim “Same level of service in every country with centralized communications – Deel ✓ Yes, Rippling X No, as they use partners in some places,” is not supported because there is no evidence about the level of service provided by Rippling in any country. Therefore, NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued.
During the proceeding Deel permanently discontinued and modified certain claims. Therefore, NAD did not review these claims on their merits and will treat the claims, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued.
In its advertiser statement, Deel stated that it will comply with NAD’s decision.
All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive. This press release shall not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.
About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than a dozen globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, create a fairer playing field for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.
About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. The National Advertising Division reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business.
头条
2024年08月10日
头条
Josh Bersin: When Will The Trillions Invested In AI Pay Off? Sooner Than You Think.近年来，生成式人工智能（GenAI）的投资已达数万亿美元，但围绕其回报问题的争论不断升级。一些分析师，如麻省理工学院教授达隆·阿西莫格鲁（Daron Acemoglu）和纽约大学心理学与神经科学教授加里·马库斯（Gary Marcus），对AI的经济影响持悲观态度，认为其对美国生产力和GDP增长的推动作用有限，甚至可能导致市场崩溃。相反，另一派如高盛的全球经济学家则乐观地认为，AI有望在未来十年内大幅提高生产力。然而，文章指出，生成式AI的真正价值在于其特定领域的应用。例如，Paradox和Galileo等HR技术平台通过高度专业化的解决方案，显著提升了招聘和人才管理的效率。最终，文章强调，AI行业仍处于早期阶段，成功的关键在于找到具有专注性和精确性的创新解决方案。
In the last few weeks there has been a lot of concern that Gen AI is a “bubble” and companies may never see the return on the $Trillion being spent on infrastructure. Let me cite four analyst’s opinions.
Will Today’s Massive AI Investments Pay Off?
MIT professor Daron Acemoglu estimates that over the next ten years AI will impact less than 5% of all tasks, concluding that AI will only increase US productivity by .5% and GDP growth by .9% over the next decade. As he puts it, the impact of AI is not “a law of nature.”
On a similar vein, Gary Marcus, professor emeritus of psychology and neural science at New York University, believes Gen AI is soon to collapse, and the trillions spent will largely result in a loss of privacy, increase in cyber terror, and a lack of differentiation between providers. The result: a market with low profits and big losses.
Goldman Sachs Head of Equity Research Jim Covello is similarly pessimistic, arguing simply that the $1 Trillion spent on AI is focused on tech that cannot truly automate complex tasks, and that vendors’ over-focus on “human-like features” will miss the boat in delivering business productivity. (He studies stocks, not the economy.)
And Goldman Sachs Global Economist, who is a fan, estimates that AI could automate 25% of work tasks and raise US productivity by 9T and GDP by 6.1% over the next decade. He follows the traditional business meme that “AI changes everything” for the better.
What’s going on? Quite simply this new technology is very expensive to build, so we’re all unsure where the payoffs will be.
Buyers Are Looking For A Return Soon
If we discount the work going on at Google, Meta, Perplexity, and Microsoft to build AI-based search businesses, which make money on advertising (Zuckerberg essentially just said that in a few years AI will guarantee your ad spend pays off), corporate IT managers are asking questions.
An article in Business Insider pointed to a large Pharma company that cancelled their Microsoft Copilot licenses because the tool was not adding any significant value (Chevron’s CIO was quoted similarly in The Information).
Another quoted a Chief Marketing Officer who stated Google Gemini’s email marketing tool and the new AI-powered ad-buying tool performed worse than the human workers it was intended to replace (or support).
Given that these tools almost double the “price per user” for the productivity suites, I think it’s fair that CIOs, CMOs, to expect them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.
What’s Going On? The Big Wins Will Be Domain Specific
As with all new technologies that enter the market quickly, “the blush on the rose” is over. We’ve been dazzled by the power of ChatGPT and now we’re searching for real solutions to problems. And unlike the internet, where research was funded by the government, there’s going to be a lag (and some risk) between the trillions we spend and the trillions we save.
Given that ChatGPT is less than two years old and OpenAI has morphed from a research company into a product company, it’s easy to see what’s happening. Every vendor and tool provider is narrowing its AI “strategy” and not just pasting little AI “stars” on their websites, looking for useful things to do. And this process may take a few years.
In the world of HR, I think we can all agree that a “push the button job description generator” is a bit of a commodity. However if the AI analyzes the job title, identifies the skills needed through a large skills engine, and tunes the job description by company size, industry, and role, then it’s a fantastic solution. (Galileo does this, as does SeekOut, SAP, and some other vendors.)
The more “specific” and “narrow” the AI is, the more useful it becomes. Generic LLMs that aren’t highly trained, optimized, and tuned to your company, business, and job are simply not going to command high prices. So while we all thought ChatGPT was Nirvana, we’re now figuring out that highly specialized solutions are the answer.
Let me give you some examples.
The first is the platform built by Paradox, a pioneering company that started work on AI-based recruiting agents in 2016. Paradox, now valued at around $2 Billion, delivers an end-to-end recruitment platform that automates the entire process of candidate marketing, candidate experience, assessment, selection, interview scheduling, hiring, and onboarding. Most people believe its a “Chatbot” but in reality it’s an AI-powered end-to-end system that radically simplifies and speeds the recruitment process in a groundbreaking way. Companies like 7-11, FedEx, GM, and others see massive improvements in operational efficiency and both candidates, managers, and recruiter adore it. It took Paradox eight years to build this level of integrated solution.
The second is our platform Galileo. Galileo, which is now licensed by more than 10,000 HR professionals, is a highly tuned AI agent specifically designed to help HR professionals (leaders, business partners, consultants, recruiters, and other roles) do the “complex work” HR professionals do. It’s not a generic LLM: it’s a highly specialized solution designed specifically for HR professionals, and we’ve added specialized content partners and are building special integrations with other HR platforms. Our clients tell us it’s saving them 1-2 hours a day.
The third is the platform HiredScore, that was recently acquired by Workday. Founded in 2012, the HiredScore team built tools to help identify “fit” between individuals and jobs, and tuned its AI to be highly explainable, unbiased, and very easy to use. It took Athena Karp and the team a few years to nail down the use-cases and user interface but now HiredScore is considered one of the most powerful recruitment “orchestration” tools in the market, and is also used for internal hiring and many other applications. Every customer I talk with tells me it’s essential and saves them months of manual, error-prone effort.
The fourth is the platform Eightfold, which was invented in 2016 as a way to build “Google-scale” matching between job seekers and jobs. Through many years of engineering, product management, and ongoing sales process the company has become the leader in a new space called “Talent Intelligence,” now a billion dollar rapid-growing category. The company is about ten years old and now has some of the world’s largest companies building their hiring, career management, and talent management processes using AI. Companies like EY, Bayer, and Chevron now use it for all their strategic talent programs.
Each of these vendors, including others like Gloat, Sana, Arist, Lightcast, Draup, Uplimit, Firstup, and hundreds of others have patiently taken the power of Generative AI and applied it with laser precision to their solutions. Each of these companies is different, and as we work with them we see lightning bolts of innovation: not in AI itself, but in finding new ways to solve problems and do what I call “crawling up the value curve.”
This is the path for AI in the coming years. As with all new technologies, the “trough of disappointment” is always followed by the “bowling pin” of hitting the nail on the head. Innovators, entrepreneurs, and startup founders are the ones who will take GenAI and apply it in unique ways to solve problems. And soon enough, “AI-powered” will be a phrase we barely even need to say.
The Best Solutions Will Be Narrow Not Wide
GenAI solutions require a large “platform” of data, infrastructure, and software. That alone is not where the value resides. Rather, the big productivity advantages come after years of effort, focusing the data sets and working with customers to find the features, UI designs, and data sets that add enormous value. And we are still in the early stages.
If you want to learn more about HR Technology and AI, join me at the HR Technology Conference on September 24-25 in Vegas, or at Unleash in Paris in October 16-17. While I can’t predict who will win the core AI platform game (Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, Meta, Amazon will fight it out), I can predicts this: Generative AI will deliver massive improvements in business productivity. You just have to shop around a bit and wait for just the right solutions to arrive.
头条
2024年08月10日
头条
Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit
文章讨论了在Workday诉讼中，代理法的相关法律问题。原告声称，Workday的AI筛选工具因种族、年龄和残疾而对他进行了歧视。这起案件提出了HR技术供应商是否可以对歧视性结果直接负责的问题。法律的复杂性包括AI在招聘决策中的角色、代理责任以及对雇主和AI开发者的潜在影响。此案件提醒雇主在实施AI招聘工具时要谨慎，并确保避免法律风险。AI开发者也必须确保其产品无歧视行为，因为该诉讼可能会树立重要的法律先例。
Editor's Note
Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit
Agency law is so old that it used to be called master and servant law. (That's different from slavery, where human beings were considered the legal property of other humans based on their race, gender, and age, which is partly why we have discrimination laws.)
Today, agency laws refer to principals and agents. All employees are agents of their employer, who is the principal. And employers can have nonemployee agents too when they hire someone to do things on their behalf. Generally, agents owe principals a fiduciary duty to act in the principal's best interest, even when that isn't the agent's best interest.
Agency laws gets tricky fast because you have to figure out who is in charge, what authority was granted, whether the person acting was inside or outside that authority, what duty applies, and who should be held responsible as a matter of fairness and public policy.
Generally, the principal is liable for the acts of the agent, sometimes even when the agent acts outside their authority. And agents acting within their authority are rarely liable for their actions unless it also involves intentional wrongs, like punching someone in the nose.
Enter discrimination, which is generally a creature of statute that may or may not be consistent with general agency law even when the words used are exactly the same.
Discrimination is generally an intentional wrong, but employees are not usually directly liable for discrimination because making employment decisions is part of the way employment works and the employer is always liable for those decisions.
The big exception is harassment because harassment, particularly sexual harassment, is never part of someone's job duties. So in harassment cases, the individual harasser is liable but the employer may not be unless they knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it.
It's confusing and makes your head hurt. And that's just federal discrimination law. Other employment laws, both state and federal, deal with agent liability differently.
Now, let's move to the Workday lawsuit. In that case, the plaintiff is claiming that Workday was an agent of the employer, but not in the sense of someone the employer was directing. They are claiming that Workday has independent liability as an employer too because they were acting like an employer in screening and rejecting applicants for the employer.
But that's kinda the whole point of HR Technology—to save the employer time and resources by doing some of the work. The software doesn't replace the employer's decision making and the employer is going to be liable for any discrimination regardless of whether and how the employer used their software.
If this were a products liability case, the answer would turn on how the product was designed to be used and how the employer used it. But this is an employment law and discrimination case. So, the legal question here is whether a company that makes HR Technology can also be directly liable for discriminatory outcomes when the employer uses that technology.
We don't have an answer to that yet and won't for a while. That's because this case is just at the pleading stage and hasn't been decided based on the evidence. What's happened so far is Workday filed a motion to dismiss based on the allegations in the complaint. Basically, Workday said, "Hey, we're just a software company. We don't make employment decisions; the employer does. It's the employer who is responsible for using our software in a way that doesn't discriminate. So, please let us out of the case. Then the plaintiff and EEOC said it's too soon to decide that. If all of the allegations in the lawsuit are considered true, then the plaintiff has made viable legal claims against Workday.
Those claims are that Workday's screening function acts like the employer in evaluating applications and rejecting or accepting them for the next level of review. This is similar to what third party recruiters and other employment agencies do and those folks are generally liable for those decisions under discrimination law. In addition, Workday could even be an agent of the employer if the employer has directly delegated that screening function to the software.
We're not to the question of whether a software company is really an agent of the employer or is even acting like an employment agency. And even if it is, whether it's the kind of agency that has direct liability or whether it's just the employer who ends up liable. This will all depend on statutory definitions and actual evidence about how the software is designed, how it works, and how the employer used it.
We also aren't at the point where we look at the contracts between the employer and Workday, how liability is allocated, whether there are indemnity clauses, and whether these type of contractual defenses even apply if Workday meets the statutory definition of an employer or agent who can be liable under Title VII.
Causation will also be a big issue because how the employer sets up the software, it's level of supervision of what happens with the software, and what's really going on in the screening process will all be extremely important.
The only thing that's been decided so far is that the plaintiff filed a viable claim against Workday and the lawsuit can proceed. Here are the details of the case and some good general advice for employers using HR Technology in any employment decision making process.
- Heather Bussing
AI Workplace Screener Faces Bias Lawsuit: 5 Lessons for Employers and 5 Lessons for AI Developers
by Anne Yarovoy Khan, John Polson, and Erica Wilson
at Fisher Phillips
A California federal court just allowed a frustrated job applicant to proceed with an employment discrimination lawsuit against an AI-based vendor after more than 100 employers that use the vendor’s screening tools rejected him. The judge’s July 12 decision allows the class action against Workday to continue based on employment decisions made by Workday’s customers on the theory that Workday served as an “agent” for all of the employers that rejected him and that its algorithmic screening tools were biased against his race, age, and disability status. The lawsuit can teach valuable lessons to employers and AI developers alike. What are five things that employers can learn from this case, and what are five things that AI developers need to know?
AI Job Screening Tool Leads to 100+ Rejections
Here is a quick rundown of the allegations contained in the complaint. It’s important to remember that this case is in the very earliest stages of litigation, and Workday has not yet even provided a direct response to the allegations – so take these points with a grain of salt and recognize that they may even be proven false.
Derek Mobley is a Black man over the age of 40 who self-identifies as having anxiety and depression. He has a degree in finance from Morehouse College and extensive experience in various financial, IT help-desk, and customer service positions.
Between 2017 and 2024, Mobley applied to more than 100 jobs with companies that use Workday’s AI-based hiring tools – and says he was rejected every single time. He would see a job posting on a third-party website (like LinkedIn), click on the job link, and be redirected to the Workday platform.
Thousands of companies use Workday’s AI-based applicant screening tools, which include personality and cognitive tests. They then interpret a candidate’s qualifications through advanced algorithmic methods and can automatically reject them or advance them along the hiring process.
Mobley alleges the AI systems reflect illegal biases and rely on biased training data. He notes the fact that his race could be identified because he graduated from a historically Black college, his age could be determined by his graduation year, and his mental disabilities could be revealed through the personality tests.
He filed a federal lawsuit against Workday alleging race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, age discrimination under the ADEA, and disability discrimination under the ADA.
But he didn’t file just any type of lawsuit. He filed a class action claim, seeking to represent all applicants like him who weren’t hired because of the alleged discriminatory screening process.
Workday asked the court to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was not the employer making the employment decision regarding Mobley, but after over a year of procedural wrangling, the judge gave the green light for Mobley to continue his lawsuit.
Judge Gives Green Light to Discrimination Claim Against AI Developer
Direct Participation in Hiring Process is Key – The judge’s July 12 order says that Workday could potentially be held liable as an “agent” of the employers who rejected Mobley. The employers allegedly delegated traditional hiring functions – including automatically rejecting certain applicants at the screening stage – to Workday’s AI-based algorithmic decision-making tools. That means that Workday’s AI product directly participated in the hiring process.
Middle-of-the-Night Email is Critical – One of the allegations Mobley raises to support his claim that Workday’s AI decision-making tool automatically rejected him was an application he submitted to a particular company at 12:55 a.m. He received a rejection email less than an hour later at 1:50 a.m., making it appear unlikely that human oversight was involved.
“Disparate Impact” Theory Can Be Advanced – Once the judge decided that Workday could be a proper defendant as an agent, she then allowed Mobley to proceed against Workday on a “disparate impact” theory. That means the company didn’t necessarily intend to screen out Mobley based on race, age, or disability, but that it could have set up selection criteria that had the effect of screening out applicants based on those protected criteria. In fact, in one instance, Mobley was rejected for a job at a company where he was currently working on a contract basis doing very similar work.
Not All Software Developers On the Hook – This decision doesn’t mean that all software vendors and AI developers could qualify as “agents” subject to a lawsuit. Take, for example, a vendor that develops a spreadsheet system that simply helps employers sort through applicants. That vendor shouldn’t be part of any later discrimination lawsuit, the court said, even if the employer later uses that system to purposefully sort the candidates by age and rejects all those over 40 years old.
5 Tips for Employers
This lawsuit could have just easily been filed against any of the 100+ employers that rejected Mobley, and they still may be added as parties or sued in separate actions. That is a stark reminder that employers need to tread carefully when implementing AI hiring solutions through third parties. A few tips:
Vet Your Vendors – Ensure your AI vendors follow ethical guidelines and have measures in place to prevent bias before you deploy the tool. This includes understanding the data they use to train their models and the algorithms they employ. Regular audits and evaluations of the AI systems can help identify and mitigate potential biases – but it all starts with asking the right questions at the outset of the relationship and along the way.
Work with Counsel on Indemnification Language – It’s not uncommon for contracts between business partners to include language shifting the cost of litigation and resulting damages from employer to vendor. But make sure you work with counsel when developing such language in these instances. Public policy doesn’t often allow you to transfer the cost of discriminatory behavior to someone else. You may want to place limits on any such indemnity as well, like certain dollar amounts or several months of accrued damages. And you’ll want to make sure that your agreements contain specific guidance on what type of vendor behavior falls under whatever agreement you reach.
Consider Legal Options – Should you be targeted in a discrimination action, consider whether you can take action beyond indemnification when it comes to your AI vendors. Breach of contract claims, deceptive business practice lawsuits, or other formal legal actions to draw the third party into the litigation could work to shield you from shouldering the full responsibility.
Implement Ongoing Monitoring – Regularly monitor the outcomes of your AI hiring tools. This includes tracking the demographic data of applicants and hires to identify any patterns that may suggest bias or have a potential disparate impact. This proactive approach can help you catch and address issues before they become legal problems.
Add the Human Touch – Consider where you will insert human decision-making at critical spots along your hiring process to prevent AI bias, or the appearance of bias. While an automated process that simply screens check-the-box requirements such as necessary licenses, years of experience, educational degrees, and similar objective criteria is low risk, completely replacing human judgment when it comes to making subjective decisions stands at the peak of riskiness when it comes to the use of AI. And make sure you train your HR staff and managers on the proper use of AI when it comes to making hiring or employment-related decisions.
5 Tips for Vendors
While not a complete surprise given all the talk from regulators and others in government regarding concerns with bias in automated decision making tools, this lawsuit should grab the attention of any developer of AI-based hiring tools. When taken in conjunction with the recent ACLU action against Aon Consulting for its use of AI screening platforms, it seems the time for government expressing concerns has been replaced with action. While plaintiffs’ attorneys and government enforcement officials have typically focused on employers when it comes to alleged algorithmic bias, it was only a matter of time before they turned their attention to the developers of these products. Here are some practical steps AI vendors can take now to deal with the threat.
Commit to Trustworthy AI – Make sure the design and delivery of your AI solutions are both responsible and transparent. This includes reviewing marketing and product materials.
Review Your Work – Engage in a risk-based review process throughout your product’s lifecycle. This will help mitigate any unintended consequences.
Team With Your Lawyers – Work hand-in-hand with counsel to help ensure compliance with best practices and all relevant workplace laws – and not just law prohibiting intentional discrimination, but also those barring the unintentional “disparate impact” claims as we see in the Workday lawsuit.
Develop Bias Detection Mechanisms – Implement robust testing and validation processes to detect and eliminate bias in your AI systems. This includes using diverse training data and regularly updating your algorithms to address any identified biases.
Lean Into Outside Assistance – Meanwhile, collaborate with external auditors or third-party reviewers to ensure impartiality in your bias detection efforts.
原文来自：https://www.salary.com/newsletters/law-review/agency-law-and-the-workday-lawsuit/
头条
头条
头条
头条
头条
头条
头条
头条
头条
头条
扫一扫
添加客服
