HR still suffering effects of economic downturn

first_imgDemand for HR professionals remains sluggish as the economic slowdowncontinues, according to research. The 2002-2003 Market Survey report also reveals that a lack of confidence inthe economy and the need by some employers to cut costs and restructure tocompete have continued to depress the HR job market. Telecommunications, management consulting, investment banking andmanufacturing are the areas worst affected by the current climate . Michael Pickup, associate director for recruitment consultancy BeamentLeslie Thomas, which carried out the benchmark research, said: “In 2002, atypical job search is more likely to involve increased competition, longer leadtimes, jobs being put on hold and offers being rescinded.” However, the jobs position in the public sector is still fairly healthy, andproviding competitive salaries thanks to the Government’s ongoing modernisationprogramme. The study reveals that 55 per cent of respondents report that theirorganisations had adopted flexible working policies. The number of respondents receiving flexible benefits has increased by morethan 100 per cent during the past year and they now account for 10 per cent ofthe sample. Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. HR still suffering effects of economic downturnOn 3 Dec 2002 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos.last_img read more

Court records should be available online

first_img September 1, 2005 Senior Editor Regular News Court records should be available online Court records should be available online Panel’s plan is to balance electronic convenience and efficiency with personal privacy Jan Pudlow Senior Editor Recognizing Florida’s unique constitutional commitment to open government, amid realities of today’s high-tech age, the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Privacy and Court Records has recommended electronic access to court records.But it won’t happen overnight. Or even next year.After balancing the convenience and efficiency of Internet access to court records against constitutional values of personal privacy, such electronic access remains only a goal of the judicial branch and cannot be fully implemented until safeguards involving court rules and judicial policy changes are put into place.That was the 11-4 overall general recommendation of the committee in its final report, detailing two dozen recommendations, filed with the Supreme Court August 15. (See story on the minority reports, page 6.)One recommended safeguard is a major policy shift to a “controlled court file” where the judicial branch would take steps to keep “unnecessary” personal information out of court files.Another precautionary measure places responsibility upon lawyers, and others who file information with the court, to certify to the clerk what information is confidential. They risk sanctions from the court for willfully failing to comply.Stating bluntly that “current laws are not adequate,” the committee recommends the Florida Legislature and Congress en-act laws to protect the privacy rights of Floridians, including regulation of data-collection companies.“.. . [T]he privacy crisis extends far beyond court records, so that even if the courts were to close all their records tomorrow, the larger problem would remain,” the report states. “The Florida Legislature, however, has significant power to protect Floridians by enactment of state laws. Of perhaps greater impact, Florida is in this area in a position to lead the nation by way of innovative example.”Balancing Florida’s open records commitment with protecting personal privacy was a difficult task sparking strong debate that often resulted in less-than-unanimous agreement, said Chair Jon Mills, director of the Center for Government Responsibility, dean emeritus and professor of law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, and former House speaker.“Our group is acutely aware of the importance of an open, transparent, and independent judiciary. We recognize that the strength of the American justice system derives not only in its constitutional context but from public belief in it,” Mills wrote in a letter to Chief Justice Barbara Pariente.On the other hand, Mills wrote, “Florida has significant legal protections for personal privacy, and a major concern is the ability to establish a system that can rationally implement a balanced policy of openness and privacy.“The balancing of two such vital principles represents a matter about which thoughtful people, bringing to the discussion different experiences and perspectives, can reasonably disagree. Such is the case with this committee. Committee members have worked together in good faith, but have nonetheless been unable to reach consensus on several major recommendations.”Besides disagreement on the overall general policy of Internet access to court records, the committee also conflicted over the scope of confidential information, when dealing with many exemptions to the public record enacted by the legislature. That conundrum became known as the “absorption” issue. The vote was 10-5 to recommend a re-examination of Rule 2.051(c)(8), Public Access to Judicial Branch Records. (Those voting no were Orange County Clerk of Court Lydia Gardner, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Jacqueline Griffin, 11th Circuit Judge Judith Kreeger, Charlotte County Clerk of Court Barbara Scott, and 12th Circuit Court Administrator Walt Smith.)The majority vote held that the rule incorporates, or absorbs, state exemptions and federal confidentialities under the court rule. But to redact all such information embraced by the current rule would be “exceedingly difficult, if not impossible given the foreseeable resources of the judicial branch.“This has come to be referred to as the ‘impossibility problem.’ After lengthy struggle, the committee has therefore reluctantly reached the conclusion that implementation of a system that allows large volumes of court records to be released electronically cannot be responsibly achieved at this time.”The further view of the committee is that some of the incorporated exemptions in Florida law may be “unnecessary or overly broad in the judicial context where a strong presumption of openness exists.”Therefore, the committee recommends that the Supreme Court direct a review of the effective scope of Rule 2.051(c)(8) and explore narrowing its application to a “finite set of exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and are readily identifiable.”Another area of controversy places responsibility on lawyers, and other filers of court information with the clerk, to identify confidential information at the time of filing in the court record. In a 12-3 vote (with Griffin, Kreeger, and Smith voting no) the committee recommended that Rule 2.051 be amended to provide that the filer of information shall notify the clerk of court what information is confidential, by submitting a certificate of confidentiality that describes the information and the grounds for the confidentiality. If the confidential information relates to a named nonparty, notice must be given to that person. Willful failure to comply may subject an attorney or party to sanctions by the court.Another major shift in policy falls under the category of “minimization,” and, in a 13-2 vote (with court clerks Gardner and Scott casting the nay votes), the committee recommends the Supreme Court “consider the study of a court rule to prohibit the filings of documents that are not authorized by court rule or statute, or seeking relief by the court.“The committee urges reconsideration of the principle of the open file, and recommends consideration of the alternative concept that a court file is not a public common, where anyone is free to post anything, but should instead be understood for what it is: a conduit and repository of information exchanged between parties and the court,” according to the report.“As such, the court file is the responsibility of the court, and the placing of a document into the court’s file is a privilege subject to appropriate constraint to prevent harmful abuse. This principle can be referred to as a ‘controlled file.’. . . “The committee is aware that the concept of a controlled file represents a significant change in traditional notions about court files in Florida, and that the implementation of such concept statewide would be a major undertaking requiring significant resources and policy attention. The committee is of the view, however, that the electronic release of court records cannot be achieved if the court files remain open to receipt of unnecessary and immaterial personal information. Digital records create novel challenges, and so novel solutions are called for if the resolution of the tension inherent in a system that seeks to encourage public transparency while appropriately protecting privacy is to be resolved.”A unanimous recommendation of the committee was to carve out family, juvenile, and probate court records from electronic access.The committee was also unanimous in recommending the legislature make law changes on privacy protection reform.“The Sunshine State has the most transparent government in the world, and in that transparency Floridians are the most exposed people on Earth,” the report states.“.. . Technology has increased the cost of such transparency in terms of loss of personal privacy.. . The committee strongly urges the legislature to undertake a comprehensive review of all these issues, and to formulate a statutory scheme that defines the rights that Floridians should have regarding their personal information. This statutory scheme should define the protections of consumers, the obligations of business that traffic in personal information, and the remedies that consumers will have available to them, and an effective framework for enforcing this system.” The complete report of the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Privacy and Court Records, including a draft of rule changes and three separate comments from committee members, is available on the court’s Web site at read more

Nigeria Professional Football League: Shooting Stars Shift Focus on Wikki…

first_imgShooting Stars Sports Club (3SC) midfielder, Tope Orelope has said his side have shifted attention to weekend’s top flight Week 17 clash at Wikki Tourists in Bauchi.The Oluyole Warriors were stunned 1-2 by Warri Wolves in Wednesday’s clash at the Lekan Salami Stadium in Ibadan. Orelope said his side cannot continue to dwell on the painful loss to the Seasiders but move swiftly on how to reclaim the points at the Bauchi outfit.“Well, the defeat to Warri Wolves is history as no amount of ruing can undo the result. I think we experienced our bad day once again on Wednesday against Warri Wolves.“We had penalty in the encounter still went ahead to miss the spot kick to add up the miserable day. We have taken the loss in good faith to forge ahead on the other matches on the season’s calendar.“We have shifted our focus on the weekend’s clash at Wikki Tourists. We have equally resolved to make amend and strive to reclaim the points we lost to Wolves at Wikki Tourists.“It looks a daunting task to achieve but we have no choice than to go ahead to challenge favourably for the whole three points at stake,” said the Ibadan warlords goal king to are 17th on the 20-team Nigerian top flight on 17 points 11 behind league leaders, Enugu Rangers.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegramlast_img read more