[IPAC-List] Using tests for higher level jobs

[Ines Fraenkel]

Hi Jamie,
Pardon in advance if I'm not understanding your inquiry correctly but,
here's a stab at responding.

"1. If you have multiple jobs for which the test is validated, can you lump
them all together in determining if you satisfy the "majority of
candidates" rule? For example, say you have jobs X and Y, for both of which
the test is valid. Say 25% of all hires into the feeder job go on to job X
and 26% go to job Y. Can you take those two together to argue that a
majority of candidates go on to a job for which the test is valid?"

Response:  I believe that the EEOC determination of "majority of
candidates" relates to those already in entry level jobs (job X or job Y),
who "progress to a higher job".  As I read your question, you are asking
about hiring from the initial test (which may be valid for more than one
basic job) into entry level jobs. If, on the other hand, you are asking
about lumping the 51 % of employees -- who took the same basic test but who
ended up in 2 separate entry level jobs and who then progress to a higher
job in their respective 'ladders' of progression -- to reach the "majority
of candidates", it would seem that it is better to keep them separate so
that you can reach the "majority" within a smaller universe.  Depending on
how many progress in each ladder, maybe not.  In any event, I do not
believe the argument of lumping them together would be particularly
successful with the EEOC.  This is only my sense of what is likely to
succeed with that agency and not based on any precedent or analysis found.

"2. When counting people who do NOT get promoted to higher level jobs, do
you omit those who quit or were terminated?"

Response:  My view is that YES, you omit those who quit or were terminated,
as it is reasonable to count only those who are available and 'eligible'
for the progressions.  Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of having the
(EEOC) rule.

Hope this is not confusing and that instead, it is helpful to you.

Ines Vargas Fraenkel
Chief Supervising Attorney - Office of Citizen Complaints
25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 241-7738 direct
(415) 518-6052 cell
(415) 241-7733 fax
ines.fraenkel at sfgov.org
www.sfgov.org/occ




                                                                           
             "Madigan, Jamie                                               
             J"                                                            
             <HMadigan at ameren.                                          To 
             com>                      "ipac-list at ipacweb.org"             
             Sent by:                  <ipac-list at ipacweb.org>             
             ipac-list-bounces                                          cc 
             @ipacweb.org                                                  
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [IPAC-List] Using tests for higher  
             07/29/2009 01:53          level jobs                          
             PM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi all,

I've got a question that I've been gnawing on and thought it might be worth
tossing it out to the listserv. We currently have a job that we consider a
"feeder job" because it's entry level and we hire a lot of people out of it
into higher level positions. Because of this, we administer a test to
candidates for this entry level job that isn't necessarily valid for that
job, but HAS been validated for some of these higher level jobs that they
feed into.

This is, of course, perfectly legit given certain circumstances. Here's
what the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines have to say on the topic:

[Start Quote]
I. Use of selection procedures for higher level jobs.

If job progression structures are so established that employees will
probably, within a reasonable period of time and in a majority of cases,
progress to a higher level, it may be considered that the applicants are
being evaluated for a job or jobs at the higher level. However, where job
progression is not so nearly automatic, or the time span is such that
higher level jobs or employees' potential may be expected to change in
significant ways, it should be considered that applicants are being
evaluated for a job at or near the entry level. A "reasonable period of
time" will vary for different jobs and employment situations but will
seldom be more than 5 years. Use of selection procedures to evaluate
applicants for a higher level job would not be appropriate:

(1) If the majority of those remaining employed do not progress to the
higher level job;(2) If there is a reason to doubt that the higher level
job will continue to require essentially similar skills during the
progression period; or(3) If the selection procedures measure knowledges,
skills, or abilities required for advancement which would be expected to
develop principally from the training or experience on the job.
[End Quote]

So I interpret that to mean that if job progression is automatic or if a
majority of candidates move into the higher-level job within a "reasonable"
period of time (say 5 years max), then no problem.

I recently sat down to examine exactly how many people hired into these
feeder jobs are actually promoted up into the higher level jobs for which
the test was validated, but quickly ran into a couple of  logistical
questions:

1. If you have multiple jobs for which the test is validated, can you lump
them all together in determining if you satisfy the "majority of
candidates" rule? For example, say you have jobs X and Y, for both of which
the test is valid. Say 25% of all hires into the feeder job go on to job X
and 26% go to job Y. Can you take those two together to argue that a
majority of candidates go on to a job for which the test is valid?

2. When counting people who do NOT get promoted to higher level jobs, do
you omit those who quit or were terminated?

Anyone want to weigh in with thoughts or point me to other resources
addressing this kind of thing? The time I spent with Google earlier today
didn't lead me anywhere.


Jamie Madigan
Assessment and Metrics Specialist
Talent Acquisition
Ameren Services
jmadigan at ameren.com





*******************************
The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or
confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this
message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of Ameren. All emails are subject to monitoring and archival.
Finally, the recipient should check this message and any attachments for
the presence of viruses. Ameren accepts no liability for any damage caused
by any virus transmitted by this email. If you have received this in error,
please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and
deleting the material from any computer. Ameren Corporation
*******************************

_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list