The Realities of Mature Workers -
Hold on to those boomers!

Wendy Taylor, Employers Group’s Editor. Besides her writing and editing duties for EG’s newsletters and other member communications, Wendy is the Legislative Coordinator and reports on state and federal legislation that impacts California businesses. With a 25-year background and a B.A. in journalism, she has managed both employee and external communications in various industries.

There’s no way around it—the demographics of the American labor force are far different now than even just five years ago. One reason is that more generations are working side by side than ever before. While younger workers are entering the work force earlier, mature workers are staying longer. (Note: the word “mature” is the U.S. government’s latest accepted term for workers over 50, and the term “older” applies to those over 65.)1

Recognizing and embracing new realities
As the first wave of the “baby boomer” generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) inch toward retirement age, contrary to past generations, many want to stay in the workforce. Not only because Americans are living longer, healthier lives and many people desire to remain mentally and physically active, their hopes for a generous retirement package have been dashed. The first reality, then, is that most of these future retirees will never receive the “golden parachute” of the past.

Even so, as boomers—the “future” older workers—begin to phase into retirement, they will take their skills from the labor market. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projections are that by 2008 there will be a labor shortage of 6 million—with a 10-million shortage by 2010—primarily because a great number of our largest-ever generation will retire.2 BLS further predicts that in the current decade alone, jobs will increase by 15% while the labor force will grow by only 12%. The second reality is there are just not enough younger workers to fill the gap.

With fewer young people entering the workforce, employers will be left with a significantly smaller pool of talent from which to draw. Often referred to as “brain drain,” tomorrow’s labor shortage is really a skills and knowledge shortage.3

American businesses are facing greater global competition, so it makes sense that mature workers and retirees may very well become the greatest untapped pool of labor. Smart employers are preparing for this with strategies and policy changes geared to hold on to, or attract back seasoned workers.

HR challenges
According to a 2005 study conducted by AARP(formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership association for people over 50),4 although the maturing workforce has been extensively studied and documented over the years, U.S. employers as a group have only recently begun taking a hard look at today’s changing workforce realities.”
In surveying human resources professionals, the AARP study revealed these results:

“As a testament to the challenges on the horizon, 58% of HR managers responding to the survey said that it is more difficult today than it was five years ago to find qualified job applicants. More than half of the HR managers believe that their companies are likely to face a shortage within the next five years.”5

Sandra Timmerman, Ed.D. of MetLife’s Mature Worker Institute said that in their research, only one-third of the 1,514 employers surveyed in 2005 believe aging workers are important.6

Dr. Timmerman emphasizes that more employers need to consider recruitment, development and retention strategies to maximize the talents, loyalty and stability of mature workers. They know that mature workers can boost productivity levels in the decades to come—and, their knowledge can be passed along to younger generations of employees. Embracing an older or aging employee population is a common sense approach for businesses.7

Questions raised by HR
This article responds to some of the questions HR managers may have:

• What do the statistics forecast about future work force demographics?
• What are the myths about mature workers?
• What are the true economics of retaining and hiring 50+ workers?
• What are the attributes mature workers bring to an impending labor shortage (such as inter-generational exchange and mentorship, experience, dedication, stability and knowledge)?
• What are leading companies doing to address these issues?
• What are some strategies to help maintain a competitive advantage?

The stats behind the story
The BLS reports that currently there are 78 million “Baby Boomers” in the United States—and only 46 million Gen X’rs (born 1965-1980). Workers 55 and over are growing four times faster than the work force as a whole, and by 2015, the number of workers in this age group will be close to 30 million.

In 2000, only 13% of the work force was 55+. Today, that number has risen to 16%, and by 2012, this age group will account for nearly 20% of all workers. In the same period, people in the prime working years, ages 25 to 44 will shrink to 43% of the work force from 46% now. In 2014, the BLS reports that the number of people in the labor force aged 65 and older is projected to increase more than seven times as fast as the total labor force—due in part to boomers postponing retirement.8 This prediction bodes well for those employers who recognize the value of retaining or hiring mature/older workers.

Myths about mature/older workers
Employers have traditionally viewed mature workers as more inflexible, less motivated and productive and more expensive due to higher salaries and health-care costs than their younger colleagues. When hard times force layoffs, older workers are often the first to go. The evidence is, however, that many people over 65 have much to offer even if they are no longer at their peak. Some studies show that the over-40s are less likely to be off sick, and are more highly motivated and productive (except where great physical effort is required).

Economics of retaining and hiring 50+ workers
At a Mature Worker Forum in Los Angeles, sponsored by the City of Los Angeles’ Workforce Investment Board (WIB) on March 8, 2006, one of the speakers/panelists was Carleen MacKay of Spherion Corporation. A nationally recognized expert on all aspects of the maturing workforce and co-author of the book Boom or Bust, New Career Strategies in a New America, MacKay said that:

“Smart employers are preparing for this [the portending shortage of workers] and are trying to retain their mature workers by offering flexible schedules and part-time employment with benefits to keep the talent they have. Already, there is a critical shortage of technical, scientific and health-care workers.”

•Health care costs & balancing the scale
The results of a national survey of Employee Benefits Trends (2005/2006) conducted by MetLife reports that many older employees from age 61-on plan to work past the standard retirement age, resulting in an average retirement age of 71. The report also says that 79% of the companies surveyed do not offer resources and programs geared toward their aging workforce. Of the employers that do offer programs, 68% offer elder care support groups and 36% offer caregiver resources guides for their older workers.9 Many companies are beginning to recognize that perhaps it is wise to offer appropriate retirement income products to all their workers.

Contrary to popular belief about higher health care costs for older workers, there is another way to look at it.

A recent issue of Workforce Management magazine features an interview with Ken Dychtwald, author and CEO of Age Wave, a San Francisco company that focuses on the mature workforce.10 Dychtwald paints a more balanced picture about the health issues of mature workers vs. those of younger employees:

“If you look at the obesity and drug dependency and the anxiety levels of young people, it is not easy to make the case that they are that much more physically fit than an elder worker. There are some additional health costs with older workers, but when you look at the equation in terms of their reliability, missed days at work, energy and capacity to make a contribution, it pretty much balances the scale.”

Dychtwald advises companies that they can be “more proactive by encouraging informed decision-making among employees, launching wellness programs and promoting usage of generic drugs and mail-order refills. There are structures, like health savings accounts and retiree health accounts.”

Additionally, Dychtwald points out the advantages of hiring people over 65 because they already have health coverage provided by the government or perhaps by a former employer. “Most of the illnesses that we associate with older men and women,” he says, “tend to rise up in the mid-to late 70s and early 80s. The truth is there is quite a number of 50-, 60- and even 70-year-olds who are still employable, talented and gifted.”

• Age discrimination—making progress
Preventing age bias is expected to be a top diversity concern for employers in the next decade. In the December 2005 issue of HR Magazine, John Sweeney addresses diversity concerns11:

“A diversity administrator can readily build mechanisms into a program to recognize older workers. May is Older Americans Recognition month, so the administrator has a ready-made opportunity to focus on older workers.” Sweeney goes on to recommend training classes to dispel commonly held beliefs about older workers.

Further, organizations can rely on their labor and employment attorneys to advise them to review their policies to assure they aren’t setting themselves up for age discrimination charges. For example, does a policy have a greater impact on older workers?

It is important to note that less age discrimination cases are being filed these days. According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in the age discrimination category, there were 16,577 cases filed in 2005, which is actually a 13% drop from two years ago.12

Some U.S. companies have developed tools to deal with age discrimination. The following examples were mentioned last December in the Wall Street Journal13:

At Baptist Health South Florida, a six-hospital business with 11,000 employees, a three-member “long service review committee” oversees any layoff or restructuring that affects a worker with more than 15 years tenure. In one case, a 60-year old manager was at risk of losing his job when his unit was restructured. Committee members stepped in and delayed outside recruiting for any vacancies until the manager found a new position.

Deere & Company, an industrial-equipment manufacturer in Moline, IL, has developed its own mandatory manager-training program in-house, specifically to combat age discrimination. Some 1,200 managers took the course last year.

Attributes of mature workers and what leading companies are doing for them.
The reasons mature/older workers want to stay in the workforce relate to the qualities they bring to the job. Dr. Timmermann of MetLife reported that their research revealed that these workers not only seek the income (and other financial incentives/benefits), but they are motivated to do “meaningful work” and appreciate different kinds of work and the social interaction with co-workers and customers.

According to the AARP in its publication Best Employers for Workers over 50, some companies are instituting policy changes to encourage experienced workers to stay with the company longer and are implementing strategies to make them more attractive for mature workers to consider applying for new positions.14

•Recruiting workers for longevity.
Deere & Company: About 35% of Deere’s 46,000 employees are over 50, and a number of them are in their 70s. The company has no overall policy in favor of older workers; however, it tries to recruit people who will stay with the company their whole career. The tools it uses to achieve worker longevity also help older workers extend their working lives, such as flexible working hours, and telecommuting. Deere also focuses on the ergonomics of its facilities, making jobs less tiring and thus encouraging older workers to stay longer.

•Older workers resonate with older customers.
Home Depot: At the 2,000-store retailer, older employees serve as a powerful draw to baby-boomer shoppers by mirroring their knowledge and perspective. Home Depot in Atlanta caters to ‘snowbirds’—older workers who migrate between North and South with the seasons—by allowing them to transfer from store to store. This is similar to what most employers do when they bring back students year after year to work during their school vacations.

•Older workers provide inter-generational exchange of knowledge.
Marriott International: At the WIB forum on mature workers, John G. Masamori, Director of Human Resources at the Los Angeles Marriott, said: “Lots of retirees come to work for Marriott. We see the value in older desk clerks and others serving our older clientele. At our hotel alone, we have four generations co-mingling, and we instituted a program this year on inter-generational dialogues and mentorship. A young chef can learn the ropes quicker from someone who’s been doing it successfully for many years.”

Other companies are on a similar wavelength. At the WIB forum, MacKay talked about the mega bookstore chain Borders hiring older workers to serve their customers who are mostly over 45. And, she says, the cosmetic company Bonnie Bell only hires people over 65 because their target customers are elderly women; the company provides transportation for these workers, but it does not provide medical benefits.

Possible strategies for a competitive advantage
Getting more from the employees you already have, and holding on to your best, may become the best productive strategy for the years ahead—and it can be applied across the board to all employees.

Dr. Timmerman of MetLife suggests that employers can develop creative job designs and work environments to foster the transfer of knowledge from older workers to younger ones. Some strategies to retain these older workers can include retirement planning assistance, conduct policy audits to minimize age discrimination in hiring, and include age diversity training for all employees.15

A Special Report in the February 18-24, 2006 issue of The Economist entitled, “The Ageing Workforce,” offers a positive perspective :

“Companies are making great efforts to recruit and retain the youngest workers known as Generation Y [broadly defined as the last generation born in the 20th Century]. Although 20-somethings have very different attitudes on work, life and careers than their parents, oddly enough, in designing flexible working lives for them, companies may be accommodating older workers as well.”

Conclusion
As the proportion of younger workers continues declining, attracting and retaining mature, experienced workers becomes increasingly important for employers who seek to retain a competitive edge in today’s marketplace. HR professionals know that people are a company’s most important asset. Traditional concepts about the value of mature/older workers should thus be abandoned. Making the most of these workers is simply a sound management plan.

(Editor’s note: The AARP and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are liaisons between employers and older job seekers. To get details about their job help program, go to www.aarp.org/alliance. We will continue to provide articles on this important issue in upcoming editions of the newsletter.)

1MacKay, Carleen, Spherion Corporation, weekly newsletter 3rd Careers – Hot Topics, (week ending 4/21/06).
2Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review (Nov. 2005), “Labor force projections to 2014: retiring boomers,” by Mitra Tossi.
32003 Spherion Emerging Workforce Study conducted by Harris Interactive.
4AARP, A Report for AARP prepared by Towers Perrin/December 2006, entitled “The Business Case for Workers Age 50+.”
5Ibid.
6Sandra Timmerman, Ed.D., MetLife Mature Market Institute, in a Web Seminar on April 19, 2006.
7Ibid.
8Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ibid.
9Joyce Ruddock, VP, Retirement Strategies, MetLife, “The Impact of Longevity,” Human Capital magazine (March/April 2006), p.19.
10Gina Ruiz, Workforce Management (March 27, 2006), “Age Wave: Adapting to Older Workers.”
11John Sweeney, “Diversity Programs,” HR Magazine, a publication of the Society for Human Resource Management, (Dec. 2005).
12Lisa Tanner, “Boomers will affect bias issues,” Dallas Business Journal (March 13, 2006).
13Sue Shellenbarger, “Gray is Good: Employers Make Efforts to Retain Older, Experienced Workers,” Wall Street Journal (Dec. 1, 2005).
14AARP, Deborah Russell, Director, Economic Security, “Best Employers for Workers Over 50,” (www.aarp.org/bestemployers).
15Sandra Timmerman, Ed.D., MetLife Mature Market Institute, in a Web Seminar on April 19, 2006.
16Special Report in The Economist (Feb. 18-24, 2006), “How to Manage an Ageing Workforce.

By Mark Nelson, J.D., Helpline Consultant

The prominence of immigration issues on Capitol Hill have given several employers cause to audit the Form I-9s they have on file, and some have even rethought the process by which they verify employment eligibility in the first place. Whether auditing files or revising how the verification process will be done, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) publishes a document every HR professional should have at their fingertips. Its name is “The I-9 Process in a Nutshell,” and it’s available at http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/EIB102.pdf.

There was, in fact, a new Form I-9 published the end of last May, but the revisions addressed little more than the agency’s name change: from the old Immigration and Naturalization Service to the new USCIS, under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Regrettably, the new Form I-9 did not update documents that have since been stricken from the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” page via federal regulation. In other words, there remain documents in the May 2005 revision that should not be used to verify employment eligibility. Employers must turn to this publication for the comprehensive list of what they may accept. Below are a few indispensable facts about the employment eligibility verification process referenced in this valuable publication.

Revised List A documents
Under List A, the USCIS no longer accepts: the Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (No. 2 on the List); the Certificate of Naturalization (No. 3); Unexpired Reentry Permit (No. 8); Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (No. 9); and the Form I-151 (in No. 5 - the Form I-551, also from No. 5 does, however, remain a valid List A document). These exclusions were actually effective as of September 30, 1997.

Employers would do well to strike through numbers “2,” “3,” “8,” “9,” and the reference to Form I-151 in “5.” Moreover, there is an additional document that does not appear on List A that is acceptable. Employers should add the Form I-766 (Employment Authorization Document) to the bottom of their revised List A documents.

Receipt rule
The publication also explains the USCIS’s position on applicants and employees using receipts from the USCIS in lieu of the actual document. If an individual’s document that would establish eligibility was lost, stolen, or damaged, they may present a receipt from the USCIS indicating they have filed for a replacement document that would show they are currently eligible for employment. No later than 90 days after presenting this receipt, the individual must present the actual document to the employer.

Individuals may not, however, use a receipt that shows they have filed employment eligibility but are not currently eligible, nor may individuals who have let their eligibility lapse present a receipt showing they have filed to renew. In other words, if the receipt shows they’ve merely applied for eligibility or renewal, it is not acceptable; if the document shows they are currently eligible for employment, it’s fine.

Re-verifying Green Cards
Employees that present documents with expiration dates (and whereby the Form I-9 indicates the document in question may not be unexpired) must undergo the re-verification process in Section 3. There is one document that, despite its expiration date, does not require re-verification. An employee with what is commonly referred to as a Green Card (Form I-551) does not need to fill out Section 3 when their Green Card expires.

Copying documents
There is a significant amount of confusion regarding whether employers must or may or are wise not to copy the documents individuals produce for employment eligibility.

“The Form I-9 Process in a Nutshell” clarifies that copying is not required but if the employer chooses to do so, it should copy all documents and not merely those of foreign-born individuals. To do so may lead to national origin discrimination issues.The above pointers are all contained in this document, in addition to several more less commonly known concerns.

The OFCCP Achieves Milestone Recoveries

By Ahmed younies, Director Compliance Programs

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended. These statutes prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment based on race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or covered veteran status.

2005 is banner year for OFCCP
As a result of its enforcement efforts, the OFCCP has been successful in recovering increasing amounts of financial remedies for alleged victims who had been subjected to unlawful employment discrimination. Just in Fiscal Year 2005, the OFCCP recovered a record $45,156,462 for about 15,000 American workers. This record amount reflects a 56% increase since 2001 in money recovered by the agency. The yearly results further highlight this upward trend.

Why the dramatic increase in recoveries?
Since 2003, the OFCCP has adopted a new approach to focus on cases with indicators of systemic discrimination. Mr. Charles Jams, the head of OFCCP, introduced the new concept, which was named “Active Case Management”. Under the ACM model, OFCCP uses statistical methods to rank and prioritize establishments for more comprehensive audits based on its conclusions about the probability that discrimination will be uncovered during the audit.

Needless to say, the OFCCP is becoming increasingly capable of screening contractor establishments. As a result, 12.4% of OFCCP's completed evaluations closed with a conciliation agreement, compared with 6.7% of OFCCP's completed evaluations closing with a conciliation agreement in Fiscal Year 2004.

The outlook
Obviously, the OFCCP will strive to surpass the record recoveries obtained in the Fiscal Year 2005. To further protect workers with enforceable standards, OFCCP released new, clearer guidelines about recordkeeping for internet applicants and recommended methodologies for the analysis of compensation. These will not only help the OFCCP in effective in enforcement, but also allow employers to better understand their legal obligations.

A proactive human resources practitioner should anticipate the actions of a more determined, confident and capable OFCCP. You will want to have your Affirmative Action requirements covered, before the enforcer knocks on your company’s door.

(Editor’s note: For information about EG’s AAP services and audits, contact Ahmed Younies ayounies@employersgroup.com)

Domestic Workers in Private Households

By Dagmar Muthamia, SPHR, Helpline Consultant

Illegally employing domestic workers is common, but can have serious consequences as we know from politics. Clinton nominee for Attorney General, Zoe Baird, and Bush nominees Linda Chavez for Labor Secretary and Bernard Kerik for Secretary of Homeland Security were all forced to withdraw because they had employed illegal immigrants and/or failed to pay taxes on behalf of their domestic workers. EG members may need to know about domestic workers in private households for themselves or others in their organizations.

Wage Orders and the FLSA
In California, essential wage and hour regulations are in the Wage Orders. While some cover industries others cover occupations. Occupation wage orders are used only when none of the industry wage orders apply. Many domestic workers are covered by an industry Wage Order -- usually Wage Order 5 for the Public Housekeeping Industry. A private household is not an industry so the occupation based Wage Order 15 for Household Occupations applies.

Wage Order 15 defines household occupations as “all services related to the care of persons or maintenance of a private household or its premises by an employee of a private householder.” Examples are: butlers, chauffeurs, companions, cooks, day workers, gardeners, graduate nurses, grooms, house cleaners, housekeepers, maids, practical nurses, tutors, valets, drivers, nannies, caretakers and yard workers.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) uses the term domestic worker. Currently domestic workers are covered by the FLSA if they are paid at least $1,000 in wages from a single employer in a year, or if they work eight hours or more in a week for one or several employers. The category of domestic workers includes personal companions for the aged and infirm and casual babysitters who are exempt from minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA. This means that a teenager who baby sits only an evening or two each month for the neighbors is not covered under the FLSA; while a fulltime au pair is covered. In both state and federal law a distinction is made between live-in and non-live-in domestic workers.

Personal attendants
Some domestic workers are classified as personal attendants. Personal attendants can be employed in non-profit organizations under Wage Order 5, but when they are employed by private householders or by a third party employer as recognized in the health care industry to work in a private household, they are under Wage Order 15.

A personal attendant is a person employed to supervise, feed or dress a child or person who by reason of advanced age, physical disability or mental deficiency needs supervision or a baby sitter. Personal attendants may not perform any “significant” amount of other work. A personal attendant is partially exempt from Wage Order 15. Overtime, meal and rest periods do not apply. Minimum wage does. A personal attendant who is under the age of 18 and is employed as babysitter for a minor child of the employer in the employer's home is completely exempt from the Wage Order.

“Significant” other work is defined for both federal and state purposes as being not more than 20%. Usually other work involves housekeeping duties, such as making beds, preparing meals and washing clothes. Any worker who regularly gives medication or takes temperatures, pulse or respiratory rates is not a personal attendant, but rather some classification of nurse, licensed or unlicensed.

Minimum wage and overtime
Overtime and minimum wage are a few of the topics that an employer of domestic workers needs to know about. The following chart shows minimum wage and overtime requirements. In California, meals and lodging may not be credited toward minimum wage for household workers, including personal attendants.

Under Wage Order 15, when a live-in domestic worker works more than 5 days in one workweek without 24 consecutive hours off, he/she must be paid 1 ½ time the regular rate for the first 9 hours. Time worked in excess of 9 hours on the 6th or 7th workday in the workweek must be paid at double time. Live-ins must also be paid 1 ½ times the regular rate when they work during the off-duty time on a 12-hour shift or when they work during the 12 consecutive hours off duty during each 24 hour workday.

California overtime for domestic workers who are not live-ins is 1 ½ times the regular rate for hours over 8 in a day, over 40 in a week and the first 8 hours of work on the 7th consecutive day of work in the workweek. Double time must be paid for hours over 12 in a day and hours over 8 on the 7th consecutive day of work in the workweek.

Limitations on hours and days of work
Wage Order 15 live-in employees may not work more than 5 days in a workweek without a day off of at least 24 consecutive hours except in an emergency. Live-in employees who work 12 hours must have 3 hours off duty during the 12 hour span of work. Failure to have the allotted time off shall result in premium pay for the additional time as described above.

Household workers who are not personal attendants or live-ins must have one day of rest in 7 or the equivalent in each calendar month except where the total hours for the week do not exceed 30 and no more than 6 hours are worked in any one workday.

I-9 applicability
For all workers hired on a regular basis after 11/6/1986, an I-9 must be completed. This is required for all those who work in a private home on a regular basis but not for casual domestic work if it is irregular, sporadic or intermittent. It is not necessary if services are performed by an independent contractor or someone employed by another party such as a temporary agency.

Social Security
Domestic service in a private home is taxable for Social Security and Medicare in 2006 if $1,500 or more is paid in cash during the year. Non-cash payments are not included in the $1,500. The employer is exempt if the employee is under 18 at any time of the calendar year and domestic service is not the principal occupation of the employee.

Other taxes
Taxation is so complicated that it may need the assistance of a tax advisor. Briefly however, the following pertains to household employees.

California taxes for household (domestic) employment is subject to unemployment insurance (UI) and employment training tax (ETT) if $1,000 or more paid in any calendar year. State Disability Insurance tax (which includes Paid Family Leave insurance) must be paid if $750 or more is paid in any calendar quarter. Federal unemployment tax (FUTA) must be paid if $1,000 or more is paid to a household employee in any calendar quarter in 2006. Personal income tax withholding is not required by federal or state law.

Comprehensive information is available online. Publication 926, Household Employer’s Tax Guide can be accessed at www.irs.gov. California information is contained in publication DE 8829 and Information Sheet DE 231L which are available at www.edd.ca.gov.

Summer Hires and Child Labor Laws

With the summer vacation period rapidly approaching, employers will be receiving an increase in applications from students seeking temporary employment. Some of these students are considered “minors,” whose working conditions and hours are regulated by state and federal laws. In some instances, the state or federal law will ban the employment of minors entirely.

Under the California Educational Code, a “minor” is defined as a child under the age of six and any person under the age of eighteen who is required to attend school. Employers Group’s Helpline Consultants put together this overview for employers.

Permits to Work/Permits to Employ
A work permit will be required prior to employing a minor, even during the summer vacation, unless the minor is a high school graduate or has a certificate of proficiency. In California, any minor who is at least twelve years of age may be issued a Permit to Work by school officials; however, few occupations are available to them. Federal and state occupational restrictions are such that in most cases minors must be at least fourteen years of age to begin working. The permit contains the maximum number of hours a minor may work in a day, range of hours during the day, occupational limitations and any additional restrictions imposed at the school’s discretion.

A Permit to Employ is the employer’s copy of the work permit and expires five days after the opening of the next succeeding school year. It must be renewed in order to continue employment.

Occupational Restrictions
Minors under eighteen are restricted in any occupations declared by the Secretary of Labor to be hazardous. The complex and lengthy regulations are set forth in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulation Part 570, Subpart E. A selected listing of these are:

• Motor vehicle drivers and helpers
• Positions in plants manufacturing explosives
• Operations of a power-driven wood-working machine, a hoisting apparatus or a metal forming, punching or shearing machine
• Operators of bakery or paper products machines
• Mining, coal mining and logging occupations
• Positions involving exposure to radioactive substances
• Jobs involving the operation of circular saws, bandsaws, or guillotine shears
• Brick and tile manufacturing positions
• Occupations involving excavation, roofing, wrecking, demolition or shipping.

Persons over eighteen may be employed in almost any occupation. However, there are rare exceptions, such as particular employment situations involving the sale and service of alcoholic beverages and transporting hazardous material. The California vehicle code also has additional restrictions.

Josie Gonzalez is the managing partner of the immigration law firm of Gonzalez & Harris in Pasadena. (Editor’s note: this article contains information the writer had as of April 14, 2006.)

This article will examine the new, hotly debated legislation and compare it against IRCA [The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986], which provided legalization for undocumenteds and imposed penalties on employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers. It will also explain how Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) outreach at the worksite has already changed—absent the passage of any new laws. Lastly, it will provide some pointers on how to ensure compliance.

Some things don’t change
The perception that the nation’s immigration woes are the fault of the business community and harsher penalties must be imposed on employers as a solution to the country’s immigration problems is the common denominator of the 1986 legislation and now the 2006 legislation.

While thankful for the 1986 legalization provisions, many employers wondered if the trade-off – legalization for employer sanctions – was worth it. If the new legislation passes congressional muster in its current form, few employers will think that the new guest worker provisions are an acceptable trade for the enhanced civil and criminal penalties contained in both the current House (HR4437) and Senate (2454) bills. However, employer excitement over the possibility of legalizing one’s workforce and ignorance about the impact of the legislation has clouded the perception of many.

The major employer-related features of the 2006 proposed legislation:

• Mandated electronic new hire verification is phased in over five years starting with employers in critical infrastructure sites or sites related to homeland or national security and employers with prior violations.
• If an employer has 10 or more undocumented workers, there is a rebuttable presumption that the employer knew or had reason to know such aliens were unauthorized. The completion of an I-9 is a defense until participation in an electronic I-9 verification program is mandated.
• The standard for review of documents would change: concepts such as “taking all reasonable steps to verify eligibility for employment,” and “totality of the circumstances” will now replace current protection if the documents examined “reasonably appeared genuine on their face.”
• I-9s and copies of all documents must be maintained for seven years.
  • Records of Social Security No-Match letters and steps taken to resolve each matter must be maintained.
• Criminal penalties for pattern and practice of knowing hire are increased to $20,000 for each violation and 6 months imprisonment.
• Civil fines for knowing hire are increased, ranging from $500 to $20,000.
• Civil fines for paperwork or electronic verification omissions start at $200 to $6000.
• Debarment from participating in government contracts if convicted of an offense or if there are repeat civil violations.

For the first 10 years after the passage of IRCA, initial enforcement efforts focused on whether the employer completed a perfect I-9, and hefty fines were levied for minor imperfections regardless of the legal status of the workers. After former Congressman Sonny Bono sponsored a revision to the law, enacted in 1996, that required immigration inspectors to issue deficiency notices for I-9 irregularities with a ten day opportunity to cure the deficiency, enforcement plummeted.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, almost 10 years after the Bono provisions were enacted, still has not promulgated any regulations nor delivered on its promised revised I-9 form. Thus, over the last 10 years we’ve witnessed a period of lessened enforcement except for the focus since 2001 on critical infrastructure employment sites, which generally net not the targeted terrorists but Mexican laborers.

Enforcement strategies are changing
Whether this legislation with its harsh criminal provisions passes this year or in the future, the face of immigration enforcement will be marked by increased criminal, not civil, enforcement. There really is no need for the passage of new criminal penalties as there are already a multitude of criminal provisions that an employer can be indicted for related to the employment of unauthorized aliens, including making a false attestation on the I-9; misuse of the social security system; harboring or shielding aliens; accepting documents known to be false; and pattern and practice of knowingly hiring or continuing the employment of unauthorized workers.
Today, an I-9 audit can rapidly become a vehicle for a criminal indictment. While ICE claims that criminal prosecutions are only reserved for egregious offenders who often also run afoul of minimum wage and other labor violations, recent investigations have not focused on the traditional “sweat shop;” now, attention is on the large, substantial employer -- the Tyson’s Food or Wal-Marts of America.

What employers can do to increase corporate compliance

• Continue to assiduously complete and maintain I-9s and consider voluntary participation in Social Security and electronic verification programs.
• Ensure that those entrusted to hire and to complete I-9s have proper training and adhere to strict compliance over productivity goals.
• Develop an immigration compliance program to avoid corporate criminal liability when rogue supervisors’ or managers’ conduct threatens to be imputed to management.
• Regard every I-9 audit and visitation from ICE investigators as a potential criminal investigation as search warrants and comprehensive raids at the worksite become standard investigative tools.

In conclusion, as in 1986 with the passage of IRCA, once again the “carrot” of legalization for workers in order to wipe the slate clean versus the “club” of enhanced enforcement is on the table. While the numerous guest worker provisions have been much in the limelight, the employer-impacted repercussions need serious study.

CEO Not Personally Liable

By Jim Kuns, J.D., Senior EG Consultant

By Jim Kuns, J.D., Senior Helpline Consultant

A California appeals court determined that a corporate officer with operational control of a California company was not subject to personal liability for failure to pay employee’s wages, see - Jones v. Gregory (2004). California does not have an appropriate definition of an employer in this matter, and therefore, the court decided that the applicable law to be used in this state case is common law, not federal law.

William Gregory helped create Science Adventures, Inc. (SA), a company that runs summer science camps for school children. The company grew over a 20-year period from a very small concern accommodating only 60 campers, to a much larger company with over 40,000 summer campers. Gregory was SA’s CEO, and his wife, Toni, held the other officer positions in the corporation.

Gregory hired seven lead staff members, which he assigned to handle various segments of the business. All the staff reported directly to Gregory. He supervised the higher-level staff, and determined the pay rates for all of SA’s employees. He alone was authorized to sign checks for SA. His approval was needed for all matters of significance.

In 1999, SA developed an unexplained cash flow problem, even though the company had $10 million in gross receipts. As a result, 555 summer instructors and 147 administrators were not paid their wages. Gregory notified all SA employees regarding the lack of funds through a series of memos. He finally announced a wage repayment scheme based on a priority method.

He said: “We have begun paying those instructors who have returned to work first. They will be helping generate the cash, which will eventually pay everyone else. ...We now propose to pay any unpaid summer instructors who are not currently working, but who choose to return to teach summer camp 2000 in three payments. The first will be equal to approximately 25% of what is owed . ...The second payment ... will be paid whenever the instructor shows up for training. The balance will be made at the end of the summer season. ...Although all employees who have not been paid ... certainly have the right to seek legal action, they will be placed in last priority...” He also offered a settlement to employees who would accept 75 percent of the total sum owed.

SA declared bankruptcy in 2000. However, SA is still in business, and Gregory is still its CEO. California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) filed suit against Gregory, et al for back pay due to 45 former California employees. The suit asked for an accounting and charged SA with the following California Labor Code violations: “(1) failure to pay wages immediately upon discharge, layoff, or resignation (§§ 201-203); (2) failure to pay vested vacation time (§ 227.3); failure to indemnify business expenses (§ 2802); and (4) money had and received.” The DLSE considered Gregory, amongst others, as a joint employer of the employees.

The lower court decided the case in favor of 14 employees. The award amounted to over 100,000 dollars for unpaid wages, vacations, expenses, interest, and for waiting time penalties. The judgment held Gregory individually liable. Gregory appealed the decision, and argued that California law does not support imposing personal liability on corporate officers or agents as “employers.” The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District agreed with Gregory and reversed the lower court’s decision.

At the appeal level Gregory argued that the lower court had incorrectly applied a federal standard of “operational control.” The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines “employer” broadly. The court noted that “Holding a corporation's president liable for his employees’ unpaid overtime wages, [numerous federal courts] … have concluded that an individual corporate officer or owner may be deemed an employer under the FLSA - and therefore responsible for the corporation's FLSA obligations - in situations where the individual has overall operational control of the corporation, possesses an ownership interest in it, controls significant functions of the business, or determines the employees’ salaries and makes hiring decisions.”

The court said the DLSE had incorrectly relied on similar federal cases. The DLSE argued that Gregory was an “employer” as indicated in various Labor Code wage provisions and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders. The court noted that a recent California Supreme Court, case Reynolds v. Bement (2005), supported Gregory’s position. According to Reynolds “…Federal decisions have frequently guided our interpretation of state labor provisions the language of which parallels that of federal statutes ... ‘[W]here the language or intent of state and federal labor laws substantially differ, reliance on federal regulations or interpretations to construe state regulations is misplaced’ … While the FLSA contains an express definition of ‘employer’ …, section 1194 [of the California Labor Code] does not… Under the common law, corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency are not personally liable for the corporate employer's failure to pay its employees’ wages.”

Reynolds determined that the FLSA, and related federal cases brought forth by the DLSE in this case “…are simply beside the point. And the presumption is that the common law definition of an employer applies, precluding personal liability for [California] corporate agents.

The appeal court said: “…[A]s the Supreme Court noted, the ‘plain language of the ‘IWC employer definition’ does not expressly impose liability under section 1194 on individual corporate agents. Nor can we infer that the Legislature, simply by amending sections 510 and 1194 several times after the IWC adopted its employer definition, impliedly intended to incorporate that definition . . . Notably, ‘[n]either section 510 nor section 1194 contains any reference to the IWC employer definition . . . Reynolds explained that ‘[a] statute will be construed in light of the common law unless the Legislature ‘clearly and unequivocally indicates otherwise’ and therefore, ‘had the Legislature intended to depart from the common law by engrafting [a] Wage Order … onto section 1194, it would have more clearly manifested that intent.’ …Similarly here, none of the provisions plaintiffs [DLSE] rely upon refer to the IWC employer definition; hence, there is no reason to suppose the Legislature intended to alter the common law's rule against personal liability for corporate agents.”

Obesity in the Workplace -
What should and can you do?

Joel Geffen, President of On-Site Health Screening, Inc. and Employee Health Coach, provides employee wellness programs for organizations throughout California. In business for seven years, his company helps develop effective programs to reduce medical related costs and increase productivity in the workplace.

If it seems like there are more overweight people than ever before, there are. From 1991 to 2001, obesity rocketed to epidemic proportions, with the percentage of obese Americans increasing by 74%—and the trend continues upwards with virtually no end in sight.

According to RAND Health, Obesity in the U.S. population has been steadily increasing over the last two decades—and severe obesity is increasing the fastest. The proportion of individuals with clinically severe obesity increased from 1 in 200 in 1986 to 1 in 50 in 2000—twice the rate as the proportion of Americans who are simply obese. Severely obese people are more than twice as likely as people of normal weight to be in only fair or poor health, and have twice as many chronic medical conditions. This translates into higher health care costs, and, not surprisingly, higher health care insurance premiums.

Some disturbing facts:

• Obesity is linked to higher health care costs than smoking or drinking.
• Health care costs for people who are obese are 36% higher than for those who are not.
• In 2003, UnumProvident, the country’s largest disability insurer, had 1.3 million claims associated with obesity, with an average claim of $51,000.
• About 2 million work days were lost last year as a result of obesity-related claims.
• Obesity plays a major role in disability at all ages.
• Economist Darius Lakdawalla and his colleagues found that disability rates for people ages 30-59 have increased significantly - the sharpest was for individuals 30-39, whose disability rates increased by nearly 130%.

Workplace implications
These facts exemplify a trend that has enormous implications for corporate America. Human Resources managers are increasingly called upon to come up with “wellness programs” that will help lower medical related costs associated with obesity. Unfortunately, many HR managers don’t have the specific experience or training to successfully comply with these requests, adding a great deal more stress to their already demanding job duties.

Many companies have tried to make changes, and while the popularity of worksite wellness programs has increased, generating enough participation in the programs can be difficult. Top management at most companies continues to treat wellness programs as an expense, not as an investment. This viewpoint exists despite the fact that for every dollar a company spends on wellness, three dollars are saved in the areas of increased productivity, less absenteeism and fewer disability and workers compensation costs.

What can be done?
It is important to understand that obesity has two components, psychological and behavioral. Intensive counseling and behavioral interventions may be required as long-term weight loss strategies. Most companies are not equipped to handle the psychological aspect of obesity, but they can make strides at the workplace by influencing behavior. While behavioral modification may not solve the problem entirely, it can result in modest weight loss and in health benefits such as reduced risk of diabetes and lower blood pressure.

When you think about it, the workplace provides an excellent opportunity to stage a battle against the obesity epidemic. A large proportion of our waking (and most productive) hours during the day are typically spent at work. What we do to and for our bodies when we are there can have a significant impact on our weight.

Depending on the environment you create for your employees, it can make a huge difference in how they respond and make the changes that will benefit everyone. Companies have a unique opportunity to help individuals achieve their goals because they have a natural built-in supportive environment where co-workers can encourage one another to stay on track.

How HR can influence employee behavior

• Encourage activity - promote the use of stairs instead of elevators, organize lunchtime walking groups with pedometers - employees can earn credits for various activity levels.
• Offer incentives- reward those meeting weight loss goals or participating in wellness programs with free movie tickets or discounts on their contribution to health insurance.
• Promote good nutrition in the lunch room or cafeteria – post nutrition information where employees will read it and contract with vendors who provide healthy choices in vending machines.
• Sponsor weight control and nutrition classes or seminars.
• Partner with a fitness center – negotiate discounted sign-up fees for employees, offer flex time for gym use.
• Add an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to your company benefits package.
• Provide regular health related emails, fliers or newsletters.
• Contract with a vendor to do baseline weight and fitness assessments.

It’s tough to change someone’s eating and exercise habits, but for your employees who struggle with obesity, a corporate culture that encourages and supports wellness can go a long way to providing the environment for individuals to take the necessary first steps. Over time, results will start to show as employees notice a reduction in the waist line and executives notice a reduction in the bottom line by way of health care related costs.

(Editor’s note: For information about Mr. Geffen’s On-Site Health Screening, Inc. and Employee Health Coach services, or to learn about EG’s EAP provider’s services, contact kscott@employersgroup.com)

Does your Company Need Ethics Training?

By Jeff Hull, Director, Learning Services

Ethics has had the attention of businesses ever since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was passed; but even more so in the wake of the many corporate scandals including Enron, WorldCom and Tyco, which dealt with the use of poor judgment on behalf of executives. Although SOX only apples to publicly traded companies and deals with corporate governance and accountability, the ethical considerations contained in SOX can be applied to all organizations.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ethics as “a discipline dealing with good and evil and with moral duty.” Further, it defines discipline as “training that corrects, molds, or perfects.” Given these two definitions, training is an integral component of ethics!

While good judgment is something that is learned over life experiences, it cannot be assumed that everyone uses the best judgment when it comes to ethical considerations. Is there a right decision? Is there a wrong decision? What benefits me most? What benefits the company most? What is the best decision that I can make that takes into account all factors?

Employees are truly faced with these decisions on a daily basis. Are you certain your employees are making the best decisions? Are you sure they have perfected the discipline of ethics? If you aren’t sure, it is relatively easy to get them started.

1. Sarbanes-Oxley
If your company is regulated by SOX, it should first focus on being in compliance with these requirements and implement such things as a code of ethics, internal controls, reporting mechanisms, audit and investigations systems. Employees would need training on all of these aspects and more. (Editor’s Note: if your company needs assistance in being SOX compliant, please contact Employers Group.)

2. Ethics-Related Training
Whether your company is regulated by SOX or not, every company can benefit from ethics-related training. Since ethics covers such a broad area, it is recommended that your organization decide which aspects it would like to focus on first.

• Promoting honesty and reinforcing integrity within your organization by making sure employees treat others with respect by not lying to one another, hiding information or cheating.
• Being fair with all employees, customers and everyone the business comes in contact with. This can be seen through legal compliance, environmental sensitivity and being respectful of everyone.
• Providing the best possible product or service by striving to improve operations, procedures and overcoming challenges that will ensure the success of the company.
• Reinforcing the need for a safe and respectful work environment and ensuring that everyone performs their work in a safe and dignified manner free of hazards, discrimination and harassment.
• Realizing most organizations compete aggressively, but fairly and that providing information to a competitor for financial or personal gain is not tolerated.
• Ensuring that the reports and records that are completed on a daily basis are as accurate as possible and are not changed to conceal or hide something that can be damaging to the employee or the company.
• Understanding that unethical conduct will have serious effects on the company’s reputation, relationships and may subject the employee, the company or executives to fines and criminal charges and may even put the company out of business.

This list is not meant to be all inclusive; however, it does show how ethics plays a part in everyday business practices whether employees think an issue is ethics-related or not. In addition, ethics is so intertwined into the corporate fabric that many of the issues above are dealt with in training programs not directly associated with ethics. These include teamwork, communications, customer service, safety, harassment prevention, continuous improvement, quality, and the list goes on.

3. Ethics Training
It is important that employee ethical responsibilities be dealt with head on by providing specific examples of the use of good and poor judgment. Some items that may be covered specifically in a course on ethics include:

• Being accountable for actions and not passing blame on others.
• Not using the organization’s assets, supplies and information for personal gain.
• Not using their position within the organization for personal or financial gain.
• Not utilizing the organization’s resources for illegal activities.
• Not using the organization’s relationships for political activities.
• Discussing and questioning ethics-related issues.
• Reporting an issue and situation that may be unethical.
• Retaliating against someone for reporting an ethics violation will not be done.

Ethical business practices are definitely good for business. To ensure that it is good for your business, employees first need to know about it and your organization’s view about it. An ethics program must be well laid out, informative, experienced-based and interactive. So, the question is posed: Does your company need to provide ethics training. The question is undoubtedly, YES!

(Editor’s Note: If your company is considering an ethics program in the near future, Employers Group provides both on-site and online ethics /code of conduct training. Call us at 800-748-8484, Option 3.)

Psychometrics -
Will it Work for us?

By Tanya Butlet, M.S., Helpline Consultant

While many large organizations use some form of psychometric assessment, or formal testing, as a part of their selection process, most companies feel an understandable wariness about using testing tools. Simply put, tests are standard assessments for human behavior. There are two types:

(1) Ability & Aptitude tests: those which measure maximum performance or predict how well the individual can do something; and

(2) Inventory tests: those that measure “typical” performance or how well the individuals will react to particular situations. These commonly measure personalities, motivation, values, attitudes and interests.

What can you assess for?
There are about 50 human abilities that can be tested, such as general intelligence, verbal, numerical and diagrammatic reasoning, spatial and mechanical aptitude, speed and accuracy of information processing; and well over 30 aspects of personality, ranging from sociability, though-mindedness and anxiety, to flexibility, personal organization and creativity. Testing can also be used to measure things like memory, reaction time and color vision.

Assessments are designed so that all individuals who completes a particular test has the same experience; i.e, they are presented with the same questions and have the same amount of time to answer them. The score is then compared with a representative sample of individuals who have completed the test in the past and determine how much above or below average the applicant has scored.

When tests are used in selection procedures they are used to measure attributes applicable to the performance of a particular job. These are typically abilities that are aspects of personality that have been found to distinguish between those who perform less well. Results can then be used to match applicants to the “ideal” profile for a job or to discover if certain minimum requirements are met.

Test manual
All assessments should come with a test manual, which will contain information on how to carry out a standardized administration of the instrument as well as its technical specifications. The manual should always be carefully and thoroughly scrutinized before a decision is made on whether or not to use a particular test. The manual should include information about the test's reliability i.e. how stable or consistent a measure the test is, and the strength of its validity i.e. how well it actually measures what it claims to measure.
The manual should also say something about the nature of the group of people on whom the test was standardized which will allow you to see how a person's performance on a particular test compares with that of other people. Information about the groups with whom the test has been standardized is known as normative information.

The reason you need all of this information is that the type of characteristic a psychological test measures, such as numerical ability, cannot be directly observed and therefore cannot be directly measured. Something like numerical ability can only be inferred from the behavior of the individual and, as such, is a hypothetical construct.

Typical tests
A psychometric test usually comes in the form of about 50 questions or statements, for example:

• 'My friends say I'm a good listener'
• 'I have always been a quick thinker'
• 'I like to take risks'
• 'I am not a very determined person'
  For each statement there is usually a five-grade answer bar ranging (LIKERT Scale) from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'. The results are scanned into a computer for interpretation after which the employer will print out an applicant profile. By varying the type of statements included in a test, the employer can get a general overview of individual personality, whether the applicant will be a good team player and what motivates the individual in the workplace.

Measuring ability and aptitude
Ability and aptitude are proven indicators of future performance. Consequently, they are often used to help improve the overall quality of the selection decision. Tests can take a variety of forms and be administered using paper and pencil, a computer, or other tools and equipment used on the job.

Measuring personality
The way that a person performs in a job does not depend solely upon ability; their personality also plays an important part. Used in conjunction with other measures and assessments, personality measures can provide insight into an individual's style and how they see themselves in terms of their fundamental characteristics. This information is generally derived from the answers to a series of multiple choice questions administered either on paper or on a computer. What comes out is determined by what the applicant puts in - it is a structured way of getting an applicant to describe him or herself.

Origins, background and instruments
Companies need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the different types of tools and also do the analysis with care.

The first psychometric instruments were designed to measure the concept of intelligence. The best known is the Stanford-Binet IQ test, developed originally by the French Psychologist Alfred Binet. Today psychometrics is applied widely in educational assessment to measure abilities in domains such as reading, writing, and mathematics and in personality testing. Some of the better known instruments include the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), the OPQ (Occupational Personality Questionnaire), the DISC (Drive, Influence, Steadiness, Compliance), PAPI (Personality and Preference Inventory) and the 16PF (16 Personality Factor)

Studying attitudes
Attitudes have also been studied extensively in psychometrics. A common approach to the measurement of attitudes is the use of the Likert scale. An alternative approach involves the application of unfolding measurement models, the most general being the Hyperbolic Cosine Model.

Contrary to a fairly widespread misconception, there is no compelling evidence that it is possible to measure innate intelligence through such instruments, in the sense of an innate learning capacity unaffected by experience, nor was this the original intention when they were developed. Nevertheless, IQ tests are useful tools for various purposes. Psychometrics is also applied widely in educational assessment to measure abilities in domains such as reading, writing, and mathematics.

Criticisms
One of the most serious criticisms of general cognitive ability tests raised by psychometricians and human rights advocates is that, in spite of being able to predict job and training success these tests demonstrate adverse impact against minorities. In other words, when cognitive ability tests are used in selection decisions as part of a top-down hiring process, majority/minority group differences in test scores invariably lead to lower job selection rates for minority groups because they score lower on average than majority group.

Key concepts
The key traditional concepts in classical test theory are reliability and validity.

• A reliable measure is measuring something consistently, while a valid measure is measuring what it is supposed to measure.
• A reliable measure may be consistent without necessarily being valid, .e.g., a measurement instrument like a broken ruler may always under-measure a quantity by the same amount each time (consistently), but the resulting quantity is still wrong, that is, invalid. For another example, a reliable rifle will have a tight cluster of bullets in the target, while a valid one will center its cluster around the center of the target, whether or not the cluster is a tight one.

Both reliability and validity may be assessed mathematically. Stability over repeated measures is assessed with the Pearson coefficient, as is the equivalence of different versions of the same measure (different forms of an intelligence test, for example). Other measures are also used.

Validity may be assessed by correlating measures with a criterion measure known to be valid. In a personnel selection example, test content is based on a defined statement or set of statements of knowledge, skill, ability, or other characteristics obtained from a job analysis.

Summary
Psychometric tests can cause suspicion and bemusement in equal measure. Some people consider them to be time wasting psychological mumbo jumbo. Employers in general do not make their entire hiring decision on the basis of applicant test results. The purpose of the selection process is for an employer to choose an appropriate person to fill their vacancy.

All selection methods are seeking to gather evidence that an applicant has the abilities and qualities to be successful in the job, but different methods are better at measuring particular characteristics. An application form gathers information on qualifications and work experience, and can demonstrate written communication skills. Psychometric tests measure whether an applicant has specific abilities or appropriate personal qualities in relation to the job specification.