Equal Employment Opportunity compliance for federal contractors

HR AA

Working for the Federal Government requires something extra due to the nature of the enterprise. Collective agencies such as the Federal Government are much more strict about rules and regulations dealing with discrimination and equal opportunity. The purpose of this paper is to explain and describe the special circumstances for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) when working with federal contractors and subcontractors. This paper will use case study information to demonstrate the practical aspects of this theme and to help provide an example for learning.

Compliance with federal EEO standards will be examined in this case using the perspective of an HR manager of a large plastics company. The company has just received an offer to produce plastic parts for their customer, whose end user is the Federal Government. In order to accept this offer, it is necessary to review the company's human resources approach to ensure that it meets the compliance standards for EEO which would allow the company to take the job. This paper will reveal an action plan to ensure that it is EEO compliant and allow the leadership to accept this work and earn profits and realize significant growth.

The Necessity of EEO Compliance

While some would argue that discrimination is a useful and practical tool to assist its user in finding truth from fiction, in the work place the word has a different meaning and connotation. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explained why such actions are necessary in the workplace. Their website proclaimed "the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit." In order for this company to accept fedral work, it must be willing to subjugate itself to the laws and regulations of this branch of the government. The penalties are severe and drastic if the rules are broken, making this Human Resources task a very important accomplishment.

Necessary Components of EEO Plan

EEO plans are very complex and sophisticated because they must address a wide range of problem areas that ensure that no discrimination is happening. In many cases in the business world, discrimination is desperately needed to help in forming correct opinions from truth, however in this case the objective is to comply and obey in order to receive the monetary benefits that come with working with the Federal Government.

To begin there are three major law components that must be addressed for a company to begin working as a contractor or sub-contractor with the Federal Government. The U.S. Department of Labor's sub-group the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs is the enforcing agent behind " the contractual promise of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity required of those who do business with the Federal Government." In essence the, components of the HR strategy must be aligned with this department's goals if is to begin working with the Federal Government as a sub-contracting business.

A major source of compliance is located in Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires contractors with contracts over $10,000 to take affirmative action with the handicapped. Another is the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VERVRAA) which would require this organization "with contracts entered before Dec. 1, 2003, who also have 50 or more employees and contracts of $25,000 or more would be required to take affirmative action. Those with 50 or more employees and $50,000 in federal contracts would be required to have a written affirmative action program. For contracts entered on or after Dec. 1, 2003, contractors with 50 or more employees and a contract of $100,000 or more would need a written affirmative action program"

Executive Order 11246 is yet another component of this compliance effort. This order reads "The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship." Another executive order, 12898, signed in 1994 requires our organization to include the idea of environmental justice as part of our mission, actively seeking social justice in hiring practices.

Problems with Affirmative Action

As manager of the Human Resources department I would strongly urge to not accept this work from our customer as the stressful demands that are inherent in such a move are not readily tolerable by the current status of the department. The aggressive and judgmental aspects of Affirmative Action place a great deal of responsibility on the HR department and we are currently, in my professional opinion, ready to take these problems on in any coherent or practical manner.

Essentially it appears that Affirmative Action is deeply flawed and puts our company at risk in its current configuration. Steele (2013) suggested that this program is not very beneficial to anyone involved. He wrote "Affirmative action has always been more about the restoration of legitimacy to American institutions than the uplift of blacks and other minorities. For 30 years after its inception, no one even bothered to measure its effectiveness in minority progress. Advocates of racial preferences tried to prove that these policies actually helped minorities only after 1996, when California's Proposition 209 banned racial preferences in all state institutions, scaring supporters across the country."

In conclusion, this move makes little sense for this plastics company from an HR standpoint. Compliance with such programs will take much time and effort and they must be worth the effort. Until this department is up to that task, I would not encourage taking on this challenge.