[wiaattorneys] Re: Suppressing name on employer job order

  • From: Bill Cormany <bcormany@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Paul.Mason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Gannon, Jack" <JGannon@xxxxxxxxxx>, <wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:19:04 -0400

In Vermont we have three options for employers: 1) an all information order (provides employer contact info to job seekers); 2) a blind ad order (hides all employer contact info); and 3) search only order (not viewable by job seekers, but allows employers to search and view skill comparisons and job seeker resumes).

At 01:27 PM 9/1/2005 -0400, Mason, Paul (LABOR) wrote:

"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Jack - About half of the job order's are suppressed in New York. It is decided as a matter of policy within each region.

---------- From: Gannon, Jack [mailto:JGannon@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:49 AM To: Mason, Paul (LABOR); wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Suppressing name on employer job order Sensitivity: Private

I have another Wagner-Peyser related issue. A local staff person took a job listing from an employer in which they were replacing their office manager but wanted to have some potential replacements lined up before terminating the current manager. As a result, they asked the staff person to withhold the name of the employer on the job order. She did this and any interested person then had to submit a resume through her. This resulted in some conflict within the office as other staff contended this could not be done that the employer s name must be revealed to the job applicants. In years past, DOL had strict definitions of what constitutes a job opening and a referral. Of course the WP regs are much less detailed than they used to be on these sorts of issues, but I was wondering if anyone has had a similar question presented to them. It may come down to a policy issue rather than a legal one.

Jack Gannon, Staff Attorney

Indiana Department of Workforce Development

10 N. Senate Ave.

Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 232-7482


This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the name recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the e-mail address or telephone number above and delete this e-mail from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.

From: wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mason, Paul (LABOR)
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:54 PM
To: wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wiaattorneys] Drug Testing
Sensitivity: Private

Has anyone dealt with the question of allowing employers to conduct drug tests at One-Stops? If so, does anyone have any policies or procedures on this issue? Any indemnification agreements?

Paul Mason
Associate Attorney
State Office Campus
Building 12, Room 509
Albany, NY  12240
phone: (518) 457-4380
fax:   (518) 485-1819

This transmission may contain confidential or privileged information, which is intended for use by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying or distribution of this transmission or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above address and delete the transmission and its attachments.

Other related posts: