1. Inicio
  2. node
  3. Remarks from The National Industry Liaison Group

Remarks from The National Industry Liaison Group

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Public Hearing of October 29, 2003 on Proposed Revised Employer Information Report (EEO-1)

Dear Ms. Hart:

The National Industry Liaison Group (NILG) appreciates the opportunity to present the NILG’s views concerning the proposed changes to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) at the October 29, 2003 Public Hearing regarding same. As requested by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) September 24, 2003 Notice of Public Hearing, we have provided below a statement of our anticipated remarks at the Public Hearing.

Our Assessment of the Proposed Changes to the EEO-1 Job Category Data

  • We support the subdivision of the Officials and Managers EEO-1 category into 3 subcategories, as follows:
    • Officials and Managers, Senior Level
    • Officials and Managers, Mid Level
    • Officials and Managers, Lower Level

    We believe the subdivisions should allow for a more precise analysis of EEO-1 trend data and enhance affirmative action planning. In addition, companies utilize EEO-1 data for many other initiatives, such as diversity planning. The subdivision of this category should enhance these initiatives as well by offering more precise, nuanced grouping of management level titles.

  • We do not support the proposed move of the Service Workers category (from 9 to 6) and the resulting move of Craft Workers (from 6 to 7), Operatives (from 7 to 8) and Laborers (from 8 to 9). The anticipated cost to employers in changes to their HRIS systems as a consequence of re-ordering these EEO-1 categories will be potentially enormous. Furthermore, we do not anticipate any significant benefit from the re-ordering of these categories.

Our Feedback regarding the proposed linkage of EEO-1 categories to census occupational codes

  • We do not support the required linking of EEO-1 categories to Census Occupational Codes. Employers need broad discretion and flexibility to identify those Census Occupations Codes that most closely mirror the specific job titles in their workforce. The content of even seemingly similar job titles vary greatly from industry to industry and even among employers in the same industry. Providing employers with this flexibility will allow for more accurate EEO-1 reporting and enhance affirmative action planning.

Our Evaluation of whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the EEOC’s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility

  • Taking into account the qualifications described above, we agree that the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the EEOC’s functions.
  • We believe that the proposed reporting will have practical utility, particularly with the subdivision of the Officials and Managers category into three (3) subcategories.

Our Evaluation of the accuracy of the EEOC’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information

  • It is difficult to ascertain with certainty the anticipated cost in time and resources to implement the changes proposed by the EEOC. However, we have provided our observations below:
  1. According to the EEOC’s Notice of Proposed Revisions, 45,000 private employers respond annually to the EEO-1 report survey. The EEOC estimates that the total, one time implementation burden for the proposed revisions will be appropriately 660,000 hours, resulting in an average burden estimate per employer of 14.7 hours. We believe this significantly underestimates the likely burden for employers, in view of the substantial resources needed to accomplish the following:
    1. re-survey the existing workforce to incorporate the new ethnicity and race categories; (we suggest that the EEOC provides sample language for employers to use that helps explain to their employees why this recollection of demographic data is necessary)
    2. design and incorporate changes in HRIS systems;
    3. train human resource and information technology staff regarding the proposed changes; and
    4. compile, proof, and finalize for the first time the responses to the substantially redesigned EEO-1 report.
  • We believe the EEOC most likely overestimates the increased annual burden to prepare the EEO-1 report after employers have completed their one time implementation of the proposed changes. The EEOC estimates total current burden hours for all employers annually of 402,700. The EEOC new total hours estimate for all employers annually is 644,320. This results in a 59.6% increase over the current estimation. Once employers have completed their design and implementation (over the course of several years) of the proposed changes, we do not expect that the burden will be significantly greater than it is now. Once the EEOC issues the Final Ruling regarding these proposed changes, employers should be allowed a minimum of two (2) years to implement. Thus, the EEOC should not require employers to implement the proposed changes earlier than the 2005 reporting cycle.

    • Our Assessment of Whether the Proposed Changes Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected

    • We feel initially the process will be confusing for both employers and employees. However, we believe the proposed changes will provide for consistency with the 2000 Census and provide accurate information for reporting and affirmative action planning.

    Our Assessment of Whether the Proposed Changes minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses

    • To minimize the reporting burden on employers, we recommend that employers have a range of options for submission of the EEO-1 reports. Employers should be permitted to submit EEO-1 reports via Web-based means, other electronic formats (via email in Microsoft Word or Excel format), or by traditional “hard copy” submission.,/li>

    Our Concerns Regarding Possible Inconsistencies between the EEOC’s Proposed Changes and the Record-keeping and Reporting Obligations Imposed by Other Federal EEO Enforcement Agencies

    • We believe it is critical for EEOC to coordinate with other federal EEO enforcement agencies, such as the OFCCP, regarding the timing and substance of the proposed changes. Employers will be unfairly burdened if they are required to maintain divergent data-collection and record-keeping systems because of inconsistencies between EEOC and other agencies. The proposed changes should not be implemented until the EEOC, OFCCP and other relevant agencies have publicly announced a consensus on the content of the changes and the precise time-frame for implementation.

    Mickey Silberman, Es q., the NILG Board of Advisor’s Counsel, will provide our views orally at the Public Hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. You may contact Mickey Silberman at telephone number (516) 364-0404, fax number (516) 364-0466 or e-mail address silbermm@jacksonlewis.com

    Respectfully submitted,
    The National Industry Liaison Group

    This page was last modified on November 3, 2003.