DE Talk | Board Takeover | The OFCCP Compliance Journey in 2024 & What’s Ahead in 2025

Season 6 • Episode 4

Join us for a special “Board Takeover” episode of the DE Talk podcast as members of the DirectEmployers Board of Directors discuss the evolving compliance landscape for federal contractors. This insightful conversation explores the challenges faced in 2024, including navigating complex OFCCP compliance requirements, adapting to regulatory changes, and fostering inclusive hiring practices. Looking ahead to 2025, the Board examines the potential impact of the new Trump Administration, anticipating shifts in compliance priorities and enforcement. From updates to affirmative action plans to strategies for strengthening workplace diversity, this episode provides actionable insights to help federal contractors stay prepared and compliant.

About DE Talk

For DirectEmployers, it’s all about valuable connections and meaningful conversations. This monthly podcast features honest and open dialogue between powerhouse industry experts on a variety of HR topics ranging from OFCCP compliance advice to emerging recruitment marketing trends, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and insightful solutions that help infuse new life into your HR strategies.

Episode Interviewer

Episode Guests

Episode Transcript

DirectEmployers Association (00:00):

Get ready. The DE Talk podcast starts now, insightful conversations and dialogue, helping you put the human factor back in HR.

Dana Deason (00:09):

Welcome to the DE Talk podcast. Hello, I’m Dana Deason, DirectEmployers board president, and today I, along with fellow Board Members, Chris Liakos from EY, Diego Gonzales from RTX, and Julie O’Hara-Harvey from Principal Financial, are taking over the DE Talk podcast to share what our experience has been in 2024 while working in our respective compliance and inclusion roles and just chit chat over how we are anticipating changes in 2025. Let’s dive right in. So I want to give an opportunity for Julie, Chris, and Diego to introduce themselves and talk a little bit about what they do at their companies and then also the industry served by their organizations. So let’s start with Julie.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (00:58):

Hi everyone. I’m Julie O’Hara-Harvey. I’m with Principal Financial Group. As Dana mentioned, I am the Senior, AA/EEO Program Manager with principal, but I’ve worked in this field for over 28 years, more of the regulatory and the human resource compliance, along with the affirmative action in the equal employment law. I also served in the United States Army for eight years and participated in the Gulf War as a storm. And so I currently serve as the National Industry Liaison Group, the chair for the National Industry Liaison Group, and also serve on this board as well. I’m super excited about being a partnership with DirectEmployers in these roles. I provide leadership and help to establish supporting standards of excellence. When you think of every phase of the equal employment opportunity and also affirmative action and compliance, everything related to human resources, it all resources, I’m sorry, it all ties together.

(01:52):

And as a military veteran, I’ve had the opportunity to work in numerous facets. The most recent one was with the Hurricane Helena down in Charlotte, North Carolina. And we had to drive up to Asheville where a lot of the families were impacted by that storm. Got there and realized they didn’t have any forklift drivers, so I became a forklift driver for the day to help get the foods and supplies to the families that need. And so things like that. So stay involved with this work and also stay on top of that as well. Fun fact about myself, I love to sew and cook. I made masks for the masses during the covid of course, and shared those and donated those to different organizations like the medical professionals and educational professionals as well. With that, I also serve as a coach and a track and field coach as well. I’m very busy, but this work that we’re doing in this space of diversity and inclusion is very, very, very, very important. And it’s important that we continue this work as we move forward in this particular climate that we’re in, in this space. And with that, I’ll turn it back over to you, Dana.

Dana Deason (02:57):

I’m glad you mentioned the coaching and the fitness piece. It seems like movement is such a big thing for you as well, Julie. And I know we’ve talked about roller skating and just the importance of moving and staying active. So I think that’s so cool.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (03:14):

Thank you.

Dana Deason (03:15):

And Chris?

Chris Liakos (03:17):

Thanks Dana. Yeah, and Julie put me on the spot. She had a fun fact. So now I got to think about a fun fact about me. So I got to, we’ll, think about that. That wasn’t in the script. So

Dana Deason (03:26):

There are only fun facts about you, Chris.

Chris Liakos (03:28):

Oh, well that’s a funny statement. I’m Chris Liakos. I am the past president of DirectEmployers Board of Directors, and still occupy Executive Team. I work for EY or short for Ernst and Young. We are one of the big four financial and consulting firms in the industry. So large financial consulting, business applications type of firm. I lead the Fair Employment Practices Compliance team and the F is for fair, but I like to say it’s for fun trying to put the fund back in compliance, which is a hard thing to do sometimes, especially these days. So that’s a place I lead. I came from, I had 12 years in recruiting prior to moving to the compliance space and so I’m a recovering recruiter these days. Many people in recruiting side, I went to the dark side coming over to compliance, which is definitely true in some cases, but it’s been fascinating for me, especially working with a company like DE to be able to continue to be in both of those spaces, to stay in the recruiting side of things, but also be very involved in compliance and audits and federal contracting and all the things that are compliance space.

(04:30):

But the one thing I will say before my fun facts is that I think, as Julie said, inclusion has always been at the core of what I’ve done in all these spaces. Recruiting exposed me to a lot of different types of people and a lot of different cultures and backgrounds as you’re looking through candidates and trying to find hires and then in compliance, really learning more about the inclusion space and how observing and understanding how your organizations include people makes you a much more productive organization. So that has always been at the core even when I didn’t realize at the core of what really drives me into working into this space. So that’s, that’s been a core driver for me. A fun fact, I guess I’ll quick say is I also, I’m not a sound engineer, but I do run professional sound for my church and for a couple of local bands in my area. So if you ever see me behind a board pushing numbers and pushing buttons and doing things, I really, really enjoy trying to work through sound and work through music. Music is another big part of my life that I just enjoy, enjoy and like Julie, I coach my son’s baseball team and I like to try to coach from the sideline on my daughter’s volleyball team so heavily involved in lots of things outside of work that keep me busy. So glad to have time and really looking forward to this conversation here today.

Dana Deason (05:43):

And I know that was volleyball tournaments, have you all over the country, so that’s fantastic.

Chris Liakos (05:50):

That’s right.

Dana Deason (05:51):

And Diego, how’s it going?

Diego Gonzales (05:53):

Thanks Dana. Thank you for the introduction. My name is Diego Gonzales and I lead the HR compliance function for RTX, which is actually the post merger conglomerate of Raytheon Company and United Technologies. Within my role as the HR compliance lead, I lead the affirmative action program development and analysis for over 300 compliance or affirmative action plans for 125,000 employees across the us as well as some responsibilities for EU pay transparency and pay directive requirements. So I’ve been in this space for about 20 years and part of my background before joining RTX eight years ago was with the OFCCP where I spent about a decade with the OFCCP working in the national office on both the policy and operation side as well as managing the Hartford District office. And so like Chris mentioned going over to the dark side, some people from the DOL think Diego went over to the dark side going into the federal contracting space.

(07:04):

I see a lot of my role as serving as a translator when working with auditors between what happens in the private sector and explaining how the data works and how we apply fair and equitable principles in our employment practices. One fun fact about me is I live in Las Vegas and when I’m partnering with our talent group, I like to use probability and statistics using examples from gambling. So it’s really helpful in translating some of these complicated statistical models into fun and more familiar examples of rolling the dice or spinning the roulette wheel. So maybe not quite as fun as Julie and Chris’s examples, but that’s how I kind of merged my Las Vegas branding along with my professional life.

Chris Liakos (07:56):

I’m envisioning recruiters being let loose in Vegas with your numbers there, Diego, that’s fun enough I think. Absolutely.

Dana Deason (08:06):

Diego also knows all the best restaurants, so if you’re headed to Vegas, reach out to Diego. He has some great suggestions and you won’t be disappointed.

Diego Gonzales (08:14):

Absolutely.

Dana Deason (08:17):

So I am Dana Deason, I’m with JB Hunt. Our vision is to create the most efficient transportation network in North America, so we drive value for you and your business. I am on the compliance team. I oversee our company’s functional affirmative action plans and it’s been exciting to live in the world of functional plans where I’ve certainly relied on Diego’s interpretive service and expertise in that area as well as everyone on the board and a lot of DirectEmployers Members. So if you’re new to DirectEmployers Association or the podcast, DirectEmployers Association is an organization that prides itself on turning insights into innovation and it really takes it up a notch in all areas of the business to make an extraordinary impact for its Members. This podcast is one of the ways that they serve Members and provide a format for sharing expertise in a convenient method that is accessible and allows for more communication and community through its strategy. So I hope you enjoy the podcast today. I know we’re talking about something that is timely, its acknowledgement of the political landscape shift and its impact on OFCCP compliance and so I wanted to kind of open it up and see what kind of regulatory changes really impacted your companies in 2024. So what shifts did you see in the year to date?

Chris Liakos (09:50):

It’s been a lot in 2024, and I think Julie was going to say something more substantial, so I’ll defer to her real quick.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (09:55):

I was going to just say, well, coming off the heels of the Supreme Court ruling, we had to really go back and look at all of our diversity programs just to ensure that none of them could come under scrutiny. And if there are things that were there that could come of the scrutiny, we were able to look at that and reevaluate those things and repurpose those. We’re not moving away or rolling back our programs in diversity or rolling back to work and diversity because Principal Financial group at the time when it wasn’t popular to move in this space and be active in this space, our company was a leader in this space then and they will be now. Although we are seeing some companies roll back their diversity programs, we’re just not thinking about that to do that. But we have looked at this in different ways and to your point, there’s a lot of scrutiny.

(10:48):

We still as an organization, we are here, we want to make sure that we are recreating an environment where there’s fair and equitable opportunities for everyone. So we’ve always done that. It was never like something where we went to say, you look at a pendulum how it swings left to, and we did not just say, okay, we’re just going to look for and look at a certain demographic and say this is the only demographic that we’re going to work with and we’re going to target that demographic. It’s not the way it works. We’ve always stood by the regulatory requirements, which is ensure that we’re casting a far net that’s far and wide, bringing back all talent and then also making the decision of choosing the most qualified person. So with those changes, we’ve been really looking at that and scrutinizing that. And you brought up something to Dana earlier about equity. I noticed that a lot of companies have moved toward equity out of the DE&I part of diversity and inclusion. So with that being said, I’ve seen some trends of that happening across the United States.

Chris Liakos (11:51):

Yeah, Julie, that’s a good point. I was just going to say, I think my brain right now is thinking a lot to 2025. I think my brain goes to what’s coming, what are we going to be anticipating? I know we’re going to get to that later in this podcast, but I did start thinking about what changed in 2024 and that equity piece is a big one. I work in the compliance space mostly, and I work closely with our DE&I or D&I partners here at EY. But it is something that we really had to take a hard look at and really focusing in on what is the inclusion space. I think that seems to be where it’s moving and how do you focus on inclusion of all your employees wherever they are in the process was a big kind of shift maybe culturally or strategically.

(12:30):

But for me in the compliance space, I think back to, we got the new scheduling letter a little over a year, a little more than a year ago. And for me personally, the scheduling letter came out and within a month I had my first scheduling letter, which happened to be a CMCE as well. So just for me personally adjusting to the new scheduling letter and all the pieces that were in that immediately I remember thinking back, I had meetings set with my HR department, with my recruiting department, with my compensation department to go through what was on the scheduling letter and what we needed to change going forward for audits. And then I didn’t get to the meetings, the scheduling letter came before I was even ready to have meetings with my leadership. So quickly adjusting to that in the new, the double compensation piece item 19 two years and some of the other really areas around policies and procedures that you have to provide upfront.

(13:18):

I think that was a big one. So just adjusting to that in audits. And I also got two additional audits at that time, so that was a big one. And then pay, yeah, there’s a lot in the pay space, and we’ll talk about this maybe a little bit more later, but there’s this concept of pay transparency, which is a broad term that I think gets used for everything. So the pay transparency could be part of your AAP and part of your audit around your internal comp analysis. It could also be things like we saw a lot of companies having to now post or list or whatever you want to call it, put the compensation, the market ranges on their jobs in a lot of different states. We had Illinois and Chicago states reporting functions that we had to work through. So I think this concept of pay transparency becomes this big large, even internally in my firm, they would say, well, we got this pay transparency thing in Illinois, we have this pay transparency thing in New York, but they’re different things. Sometimes it’s reporting compensation information, sometimes it’s just it’s posting your compensation values or your market ranges on jobs. So that was a big one we had to adjust to on the compensation side, at least for me in the space that we did in the past year.

Dana Deason (14:31):

And Chris, you mentioned the CMCE, which for anyone listening who’s not familiar, that’s the corporate management compliance evaluation. Can you talk a little bit about why that’s different?

Chris Liakos (14:43):

Yeah, so that’s not new. The scheduling, I should say CMCE, Corporate Managing Compliance Evaluation, it’s always been there, but it’s different than a regular audit. So if you’re functionally arranged or your location arranged for your AAPs, you’d get it by function or you’d get it by your establishment or location for a CMCE, it’s like a corporate headquarters one. So when they go into it, it still may be a location, in our case it’s still a location, but they’re looking at your corporate structure and they’re looking at, they’re still using the same data. So I will say the data pieces are the same. It’s still providing all the different itemization information. It’s all the organizational levels, the compensation, the recruiting, it’s all those are the same, but they go through a lens where they’re looking at your corporate structure versus that place at a specific location. So there’s a lot more around your global policies and practices.

(15:35):

I think the sense is in that one is they have a corporate management review, it’s it’s primarily your leadership location, so the thinking decisions made by you at your corporate headquarters are flowing throughout your organization. You make decisions around hiring that flow throughout. So they’re really, and Diego can correct me on this, he’s got a lot more experience in this area, but from my perception, you have to go into it thinking about they’re auditing their organizational structures, not just that one location. Diego, did I get that right? You probably have a lot more experience there than I do.

Diego Gonzales (16:06):

You did. Yeah, Chris, I think that’s exact and I think it’s the ability to expand the scope of those audits, which is always very challenging and contractors have to be mindful of.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (16:18):

I like to add to that too, Chris,

Chris Liakos (16:21):

I thought

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (16:23):

I wanted to add something too, Chris, that I know that what happened in 2024 in line with what you’re talking about with compensation, with pay in general, the OFCCP, they introduced a sophisticated data analytics to detect systemic discrimination. Sorry, there’s a tongue twister there. But they issue this too to detect the systemic discrimination. For example, there’s a new predictive modeling technique to identify potential wage disparities across protected categories, and also there’s an increased sample size requirement for compensation analysis and in the real world case study, for instance, the tech sector facing heightened scrutiny on gender and pay gaps.

Dana Deason (17:06):

That’s a great point, Julie,

Diego Gonzales (17:08):

I’ll follow on with what Julie and Chris shared. Chris called out a little bit of the pay transparency and pay reporting requirements. That’s been a real challenge as a multi-state multinational employer, especially when it comes to California. And I think we will talk a little bit about what to look forward into 2025 and potential impacts of a new administration. And that could be anything rolled back from a federal level or changing from a federal level could be anticipated to be picked up at a state level. And you can just look at the pay transparency and pay reporting requirements as one of those challenges, multi-state employers that we could face in having to solve 50 problems. And that’s going to be an interesting challenge to work through. The other challenge we have is the anti-harassment trainings, which aren’t necessarily new, but they continue to evolve.

(18:08):

So state level requirements, how do you track and assign all of those given the systems that employers are using to ensure you’re compliant with your anti-harassment and notification requirements. And then even though the actual regulatory framework is still a little bit light, ensuring that AI development or even selection of vendors is compliant or allows for compliance down the road for anticipated regulatory changes and how do employers kind of avoid sunk costs or building out systems that could be challenged when it comes to audits in terms of data production and analysis. So those are all hot topics in 2024 that will remain open into 2025 and continue to need to be solved for.

Dana Deason (19:02):

We have a very similar list, Diego, the state laws, which are likely to continue, but it is the policy requirements and the training requirements and just the little shifts in those that if you’re not watching you may miss. So having a strong partnership if you do have a third-party provider, just making sure they’re able to help you with those transitions when they happen. Bringing awareness to that. I know that’s something in the DE Connect community we talk about when there are changes, just making sure everyone’s aware of those as they come up. And then the state laws with Colorado, I know we’re watching some of the pay transparency laws that came out in Colorado and New Jersey, but then also the AI, to your point, Diego, that’s coming next year and in 2026, just looking at that, making sure we are prepared and aware, and that’s something that we have invested a lot of time in. I know we’ve partnered with an IO psychologist out of Purdue just to help us look at things. We haven’t rolled anything out in the hiring process yet, but we’re certainly looking at it and thinking about how we can use that to improve our hiring processes and making a better candidate experience is one of our areas of focus. And so maybe with that we can transition to thinking about 2025 or if you have any technology impacts that you’ve considered in 2024 that will continue on in 2025, would be interested to hear about that.

Chris Liakos (20:40):

One of the things you mentioned as we transitioned in my head, I think when I looked back at last year was compensation and the new scheduling letter were really the big, for me, the big things to focus on early in 2024. And I think those are still important. So don’t get me wrong, compensation in particular overall pay transparency, but I do think AI is kind of dominating the space right now, at least it’s for me, kind of how these things are coming out. We talk about some of those predictive analytics and algorithmic hiring considerations and where this is being used or not being used yet. I mean, even the scheduling letter did kind of push us into this space automatically because it was asking specific questions that they hadn’t asked before, at least not in a scheduling, not upfront around what systems are you using, what technology are you using that could be AI, what’s a bot versus what’s some of the other older technologies versus actual AI. So it sort of forced, at least in audits, forced companies to really think through what do we have, what are we disposing? You got to talk to your different organizations and find out what they’re using. And I don’t think that’s going away, and at least in my space, I dunno what others think. It’s grown exponentially in the last just few months even as far as where that’s coming into the space.

Diego Gonzales (21:51):

Yeah, I agree. Chris, and I think looking into 2025 and some of the chatter that’s occurring right now, speculation of new administrative priorities without having a crystal ball, it’s really hard to guess, but we can look to the past and we see even from the EEOC kind of a party neutral framework and guidance around AI regulations and how the impact from an AI perspective would be looked at. Commissioner Fondling who’s presented to DE conferences and groups has been very much out front in this and saying, look, it still has to be a fair process. So looking at that technology, how it evolves and ensuring that it is fair and equitable, there still needs to be some framework in place for contractors to be able to evaluate. In one area where I’m focusing into 2025 is continuing to develop guidance for recruiters and the talent space around requisition management and clear qualifications to be able to defend hiring outcomes in particular. And I think all of that is going to stay the same. So without guessing of what’s going to change, it’s let’s try to focus on things that we have relative assurance that will stay the same. That’s being able to defend your selection outcomes. Absolutely.

Chris Liakos (23:20):

Yeah, I think that’s a critical point. Can I piggyback on what Diego just said too? I spend a significant amount of my time with recruiting just because it’s such a huge area. One, we at EY hire between 10 and 20,000 people per year, and our applicant flow is in the millions each year, and that’s just a lot of opportunity to make sure you really, really understand how we’re defining an applicant. These are basic things that we’ve been doing for, but it becomes more relevant and more particular now where you consider any kind of technology acting on your behalf, potentially doing some of those selections, some of those scanning for you, how you define an applicant, how are you defining dispositions, how do I know looking back at all that data at the end of the year, what we did. And so if nothing else, no matter what technology we’re talking about moving to, if it’s an assessment based opportunity or AI based opportunity, it still goes back to some of the fundamentals. And chair Burrows mentioned this at NILG last year. The laws still stay the same. You still have to be accountable to your process. You have to be accountable to all the data. You still got to produce things to show that you’re not being discriminatory in any way. So the more time you can spend between recruiting and compliance, the much, much better you’re going to be in the long run, especially as we go into, as Diego said, just this unknown where we’re going over the next year.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (24:38):

And I just want to add to that, thinking about 2025, I’ve been to several webinars and there’s been a lot of talk and chatter around partial rollbacks of aggressive DEI mandates and also simplified reporting requirements and increased focus on voluntary compliance over punitive. So there’s some chatter about that out there. Enforcement wise, the trend that is forecasted that I’ve been hearing is that there’s going to possibly be a shift from mandatory quotas to demonstrated good faith efforts or more collaborative audit approaches and more emphasis on corrective action plans over financial penalties.

Dana Deason (25:18):

So are your companies doing anything differently in light of that? And it is, funny probably isn’t the right word, but fundamentals is what kept coming to my mind. Yeah, hilarious. That the fundamentals are what keep coming back to my mind, Chris. And we have this new technology, all these changes with the state laws, and it really comes back to knowing the foundations, the regulatory principles. It’s knowing the internet applicant role, understanding the uniform guidelines and really looking at your processes and making sure they are rooted in equal employment opportunity. At the end of the day, that’s what we’re trying to achieve. But I’m just wondering, are there any shifts that you are making or planning to make in 2025? To Julie’s point about potential rollbacks of inclusion requirements, and I know that the catalyst kind of was the Harvard UNC decision with the Supreme Court and just any directional changes there or any shifts if the agency, the OFCCP does move more toward voluntary compliance, anything internally or externally

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (26:33):

Level shared for us at Principal, we’ve kind of looked at making sure that we have more cross-functional compliance teams. We’re working together collectively. We’re all communicating, we’re in sync with each other, legal risk compliance, everybody’s working together, talent acquisition to ensure that we’re all on the same page and understand this and we’re walking through this and peeling back layers together. We’re developing adaptive technology assessment protocols and also implementing continuous monitoring systems. We’re looking at everything and monitoring and then training is most important, right? To ensure that everyone is aligned because you have folks in and out of your organizations coming in, leaving and you have to continue to train to make sure everyone is aligned and that we’re all consistently executing on our policies and practices at Principal.

Dana Deason (27:28):

I think that’s good advice, and I do see companies that continue to be siloed at a great disadvantage with this transition. If you are not collaborating and talking to each other, things will get missed. I mean, there’s just too much going on and that’s probably not going to slow down in 2025.

Diego Gonzales (27:47):

Yeah, I would say for RTX, I don’t anticipate any fundamental shifts. One thing we’ve recognized for a while in part for myself personally at the OFCCP is that there’s equal protection for all right, the Title VII principles still apply, and there’s going to be a continued need for proactive analysis and understanding of your inputs and outputs. I don’t think any of that changes. What could potentially change for us is the constructs and the comparator groups if there were to be some changes, which I don’t think would happen quickly. With the diversity space, it’s a little bit different in that how it’s presented in the, I think, larger cultural zeitgeist of what’s diversity, what’s affirmative action. A lot of these terms get conflated until there’s actual clear guidance from DOL. If there is any changes, we’re still required to stay the course. So 2025 planning is still happening exactly as we’re required. And we’re working very much into the month of December to ramp up our planning for 2025. So far everything is on course for us. No large changes.

Chris Liakos (29:16):

Yeah, I agree with what both Julie and Diego and Dana said too. I think it comes down to the fundamentals. I think it comes down to understanding how you’re dealing with internal discrimination factors and equity in those areas. So what I would say is I don’t think we’re changing from any of those, but depending on where you get your information, what outlet you’re hearing, whatever you’re hearing about, what speculation might be out there, but crystal ball you’re tuning into, you could go in a bunch of different directions. There’s a lot of ways it could lead you if you’re not careful. So I just want to echo, I think they’re right. Everyone’s been right about just really focusing on your internal processes and how you’re handling those areas and being able accountable to yourselves in those things. And I think you really do need to be having some of these conversations, especially in what was historically DE&I space, because I think we’ve seen in past administrations, Republican Trump administration in particular taking aim at those areas.

(30:13):

And I think there have been some examples whether or not the administration or some other legal entity where using their ability to bring up cases and bring up things that would try to combat inclusion based practices and things. So I think you’re doing yourself a disservice, and if you’re not working, interconnect with your organizations like your DE& I or D&I or whatever you’re calling it now, if you’re not working with them to prepare for those things, a lot of times, as Diego said, you want to just keep pushing forward and doing what it’s is best for your company. But I think you need to really take a healthy risk tolerance to say, especially going forward, how much are we going to stand up for these practices and how much are we going to be scrutinized for it in the future? And where does your company land on those?

(30:57):

How is your leadership prepared to take a stand or not take a stand or how they’re going to package it, and so on and so on and so forth. So what I have worked with internally, we’re doing a lot with my internal groups is really just let’s just open up everything we can. Let’s make sure we’re totally understanding what’s happening, what data we have, what we’re seeing in our data, what programs we have, what outreach we’re doing, what training we’re doing, really understanding what your organizations are doing so that you can kind of prepare your stance, your take on how your company organization is going to react to some of these things because it’s going to change. There’s going to be changes one way or another way in the next five years, four years or so, just how are you going to be prepared to handle some of those.

Diego Gonzales (31:39):

Yeah. Chris, I think you kind of touched on a really good point with these partnerships internally. And when I look at some of what might be branded as is diversity efforts, they’re not necessarily solely focused on just the effort to have a diverse outcome going where there’s talent. And so if you’re attending a NSBE conference for instance, you’re not going there just for the sake of diversity. You’re going there to find talented individuals in the engineering space or you’re going to other particular areas to find talent. And a lot of that I don’t think changes fundamentally, right? You’re going where the talent is, and that should be what we’re doing today, right? We’re going to find the most qualified, the best candidates, and we’re going to look in a lot of different places to find those individuals. So I think how we talk about those efforts, maybe we’ll shift a little bit, but fundamentally, we’re still going to take extraordinary efforts to find the most qualified people that we can for our opportunities.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (32:53):

Absolutely. Diego, I think, and to piggyback on you, key navigational strategies can be like embracing technological solutions for compliance, developing adaptive forward-looking frameworks, and also prioritizing your proactive over your reactive approaches and leveraging what you said before, professional networks, industry insights to help us to better navigate this. And it is a process and we should continue to monitor and also continue to look at ourselves, peel back layers, and also update where we need to and make those changes. But once again, prioritize proactive over reactive approaches.

Dana Deason (33:32):

I think we could probably do a full podcast just on the professional networks, but I am curious, high level when you have a question or trying to expand or build your network, what are your go-to organizations? Are you involved in ILGs? Julie, I know you kind of mentioned your relationship with the National Industry Liaison group, the NILG. Can you all just briefly share who you lean on?

Diego Gonzales (34:03):

Well, DirectEmployers is probably my first stop, Dana, and part of that is it’s a diverse, from an industry perspective, I didn’t raise it in my introduction, but RTX is aerospace and defense, but certainly having partners in the financial sector, the consulting sector or other manufacturers, healthcare, it’s such a broad network. And when we’re having conversations on which talent acquisition system are you using, it’s really good to connect with the DE folks. I know that’s kind of just putting DE out front, but certainly the NILGs are a powerful network. I also take advantage of going to some of the conferences that other parts of the business are. So a little broader than compliance focused audiences. It’s going to other events like out and equal or disability in where you’re getting some different perspectives of perceptions of compliance, fairness, those conferences, well not specifically focused on compliance is really for me like a voice of the customer and also hearing that for other employees and their perspectives. So I kind of look at it through both the traditional, what’s the compliance networking, but also the customer side of the compliance efforts to get their perspectives.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (35:43):

I agree with Diego. Yeah, you mentioned one. I serve as the chair for the National Industry Liaison Group. That’s what the NILG stands for. But I also love the DirectEmployers perspectives. So there are different perspectives and CWC as well that Center Workforce for Compliance also because there are different perspectives, and sometimes I say this, some views are more republican and some are democratic and some are more independent. So getting those different perspectives help you because your organization, Jasons are made up of these different perspectives as well. So you want to have different perspectives so you can take that back to your organization and help them understand how to understand what is happening and how to navigate and the climate that we’re in.

Chris Liakos (36:33):

So wait, Julie, you’re saying diverse perspectives are good?

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (36:35):

Yeah

Chris Liakos (36:35):

I can’t believe it.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (36:37):

I think, I think you should listen to all sides because I just think that it makes it, it’s more interesting because you don’t want to have a close mind because there are different perspectives that are coming from different places and you can put it all together and then make sense of it and put it in perspective for your organization. Our organization. Some companies are conservative, some are not so conservative,

Chris Liakos (36:59):

But

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (37:00):

It’s just good to understand those different dynamics that are happening out there while you’re gathering this data and information.

Chris Liakos (37:08):

Yeah, I echo everything you guys have said. I don’t necessarily have anything new to add. I think NILG anywhere you can find organizations like NILG, like like you mentioned, CWC, IWE. There’s a number of organizations out there. The biggest advantage is not necessarily going, it is it’s an advantage to go to their conferences, an advantage to go to their trainings. Of course you get good information, they have leaders who are speaking good things, but it really is that connection to the other people and getting other like-minded folks like yourself who are in your same role in their company and how they’re challenging and dealing with those things. And I know Diego started with it, but I’m going to say it out loud here too. DE gives you an opportunity to do that individually. You go to some of these conference, you go to NILG, and it’s just big and there’s lots of people and you get some interactions, but don’t get it when you leave the conference you don’t necessarily get that interaction unless you’re involved in your local ILG chapter, which again is helpful. A couple quarters a year, they may have a meeting.

(37:59):

But I do find a lot of value in the DE {DEAMcon} as Diego said, it’s a diverse group of companies there, different perspectives and you can have a direct connection with them through some of the tools and things that exist around the community and so on and so forth. Put a question out there that you want to have answered from some other folks, and I think that’s a big advantage beyond listening to a conference or going to some of those things that you have some, excuse me, direct connection to some of these people who are in your space as well. And I think that’s a huge advantage on a day-to-day basis.

Diego Gonzales (38:30):

Yeah, absolutely. Chris, you mentioned IWE. So Institute for Workplace Equality, a really great resource in part because they bring in faculty from a lot of different law firms, which is a great perspective to have. But one that I actually is a little newer for me in my role is the HR Policy Association as well. For those that have access to that group in part because I think they all fit different purposes within our function. Some of ’em provide the opportunity to weigh in on proposed changes to regulations and others. So it’s good to have kind of a broad knowledge of what each of those groups, if you’re able to have access to multiple resources.

Dana Deason (39:14):

And I know we at JB Hunt are plugged in at our local ILGs living in Oklahoma. I’m a member of two. I’m kind of right in between. So I hit North Texas and then also Arkansas. They’re great resources for networking. And then of course I rely on the DE Connect, I get the email newsfeed, so I get a digest of the questions and conversations that are happening, and that’s a big help. There’s also access to webinars, and I know partners like OutSolve and Roffman Horvitz have provided webinars that you can go back and look at the recordings within the DE community. So that’s been a nice resource. When you’re busy during the day, sometimes it’s hard to catch the podcast live, so it’s nice to be able to go back and listen or maybe it’s not an issue at that time. And then when you get your scheduling letter, you want to go back and look at it again,

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (40:09):

Never too much information, absorb it all, be a sponge, take it all in. Every organization offers great perspectives, take it all in. That’s all I can say as advice to you. I do. I take my time and to your point, I attend all of these different webinars. They’re so valuable in this space. Yes, they are.

Chris Liakos (40:31):

And I would say even if you’re not totally active today, to Dana’s point, if you get your scheduling letter tomorrow, it’s a good idea to start interacting with those organizations. Now, there’s other entities now because you can start building relationships so that when you do have a question, it’s a where to go where you can have trust in some of those areas. So even if you’re not actively user feel like, oh, I don’t have an audit, I don’t need to go out and look at those, I don’t have an issue. I’m not doing an a TS upgrade or any of those kinds of things, it’s a good idea just to get out there anyway and absorb everything so that you can create some of those connections so that when you are in a jam, you get quicker, quicker response into where you want to go.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (41:05):

That’s a great point, Chris. That is Chris. Once again, be proactive, not reactive.

Chris Liakos (41:12):

Absolutely.

Dana Deason (41:13):

And you kind of mentioned audits, and we’ve talked a little bit about scheduling letters. I believe all of our companies were on this most recent CSAL list, which is the corporate scheduling announcement letter. It’s the courtesy notification

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (41:27):

Not me. Not Principal. No.

Dana Deason (41:28):

Okay. Well my apologies.

Chris Liakos (41:28):

 Well Julie’s the big winner then.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (41:32):

I saw that. I was like, oh my gosh.

Chris Liakos (41:35):

Some of us have more than nine.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (41:37):

I saw that too. I was like, what in the world?

Dana Deason (41:41):

So these are notifications that our establishments have been selected, selected to undergo a compliance evaluation. And I’m curious, I know I think three quarters of us have audits from prior CSALs, but I’m curious, has anyone gotten us a scheduling letter from the new list or have you heard anything about this latest list? I have not.

Chris Liakos (42:06):

Yeah, so I have 10 on the new list, which is super fun for the next, whenever those come out, I have three open right now. I would just quick say, I dunno if it’s personal and data, but I’ve always had a lot of audits from the OFCCP in every role I’ve had the company prior to EY and a company now I’ve always had significant amount of audits going on.

Dana Deason (42:27):

Yeah, there is a common denominator, Chris, and it’s you. What did you do?

Chris Liakos (42:33):

You’ve trying to put the fund back in compliance that they’re trying to just defeat it. No, I’m just kidding. It’s the nature of the job. I’ve always worked for large companies and they’ve made it very clear on many of their scheduling letter how they select us, that when you have large companies and large establishments, you get more audits looking for volume. All that to say, I have not got any on the new scheduling CSAL list yet. I have heard through the grapevine. There has been one that I know that’s come out already, which is really, really, and it was in the western region, the west region that has been opened. The big question I have, and I don’t know if anyone has any answers, I haven’t heard this yet, but there was a movement in 2024 to have, if you had multiple establishments, that they would open them together under the same region.

(43:18):

I had that happen. I had two in the last scheduling letter, and they both were open at pretty much the exact same day and they were not in the region where the establishment is. So we’re location based. I have one in the southeast region and one in the Midwest region, and they were both open in the Midwest region. So it’s an interesting concept where they were again, pushing those together I think for efficiency reasons, which may be true. But if I have 10 on the scheduling letter and are they going to open, I don’t know the answer. I’m asking this out loud. I’m sort of scared about it. Are they going to open all 10 in one region at the same time? I have to believe that’s not going to be the case. But it is a question and concern that I haven’t got a reaction to from anywhere yet.

Dana Deason (44:02):

I think it’s a great question, and I think there are a lot of companies that are concerned about that and just the volume and ability to respond. So hopefully they take that into consideration and are willing to work with us.

Diego Gonzales (44:16):

And I echo Chris’s outcome. So as a large employer, we typically get whatever the maximum is. So we did receive the maximum this go around as well. And we also had some facilities that had the maximum, but I think it was only two on the last CSAL, but both of them were in different regions. And my understanding, those are still to be scheduled, but when they do get scheduled, we’ve been told that they would be from just one office cross regions. And then similar to Chris, I believe the Pacific region has started to schedule some from the new list, which would indicate to me they exhausted their prior list and they’re able to move on to their new list. And if that’s the case, then hopefully they’re proceeding by scheduling more locally. But I have not observed anything personally on that. I will say for those that are on the list, especially if you have what’s a multi-establishment type audit from one office, really important to note if it fits your business model that not all locations are the same.

(45:32):

We kind of straddle both aerospace and defense. We’re a byproduct of multiple acquisitions and heritage companies. So even though at the top line we carry one corporate banner operations across our facilities, some practices vary across facilities. So even though in some instances that might yield efficiencies for the OFCCP, we’re very transparent and we reach out to OFCCP to really clarify the expectation. You might not have overlap between these two audits. They may need to be looked at in different contexts depending on the area of the audit they’re focused on, right? Different market ranges for different jobs, different talent processes, and then all of the local outreach efforts. Some of those are going to be very different. So those are some challenges with the multi establishment reviews.

Dana Deason (46:28):

Absolutely. So as we kind of think ahead, and I know we’ve sort of talked about it a little bit, but just what are you starting stopping and continuing as we move into the new year?

Diego Gonzales (46:47):

I actually just had a call leading into this recording. One of the things that we’re focusing on is continuing and actually expanding our efforts around reviewing comp equity and pay transparency programs because that seems to be a space that’s expanding rather than contracting. And so when I look at resource allocation for 2025 and beyond, that is a key area focus for us. And part of that is also, if you get it wrong, the compounded interest effect of making the wrong compensation adjustment could carry on for years and years, the full employee life cycle. And so I really believe that’s an area of opportunity for companies to focus on and to make sure you get it right, because unlike some of the other areas of compliance that are a little more discreet in the, we’ll call it liability period or make whole relief functionality, anything tied to compensation really has longer term consequences. So that’s an area where I’m particularly focused on in my programs for 2025.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (47:58):

Yeah, I think that’s a great point. And for us here at Principal, just continuing to have proactive compliance strategies, continuous learning. I mean, this is a lot of moving targets in this space now. And changeable targets, adaptable organizational frameworks, continuing to have commitment to equitable workforce and practices. That’s the gist of it for us here at Principal.

Dana Deason (48:24):

And you mentioned training earlier in our discussion, Julie. Yeah, I think that’s something we didn’t spend a lot of time on, but it’s definitely something that needs to continue. So there’s a lot of continuing, not a lot of starting and stopping just moving forward.

Chris Liakos (48:40):

I’ll just quick say I think, I don’t know if this is a stop, but I think I kind of thought about all three that just now as Diego and Julie were speaking. I think I agree with most of what they’re saying in both the only stop, I would say it’s not really a stop so much, but it is considering how we talk about the work that we do in this space, considering how we are framing what is affirmative action, especially after some of the cases and some of the laws have come out, what does affirmative action really mean and how are you framing that? How are you talking about those in your organization? So maybe stopping some of those, just moving with the industry around how we talk about some of these things.

Dana Deason (49:21):

Myth busting.

Chris Liakos (49:22):

What’s that? Myth busting. I like that better. Yeah, busting nose. I guess I’m starting the myth busting, not stopping it so much, but just how we talk about it and continuing, like Julie said, I spoke about this last year at the NILG as well at the conference, really looking into your organizations and thinking through beyond just for compliance reasons, how are you measuring your organization for performance? How are you measuring your people? Because EY is a very people oriented, we don’t create any kind of aircraft, we don’t do any product like that. It’s all of our people services, tax and accounting and consulting and things like that. So how are you investing in your people and making sure that your product is the best it can be? And people, data for us is a way to get to that. So even if it’s beyond compliance, how are we continuing and starting to look at trends and analysis and how production and productivity and how people’s individual needs are contributing to that and how you can include those in your policies and procedures internally so that you’re moving the organization forward.

(50:22):

And although it’s already started, I will say my team in particular has taken a pretty significant shift into the AI space. I think it is coming. I think for a long time I sort of looked at AI and thought, oh no. Oh no, we have to stop it. It’s going to mess up compliance, it’s going to mess that up. It’s coming whether we like it or not. So I sort of shifted in my thoughts to say it’s not if it’s when and how do we get prepared? This is proactive. You said it a couple of times, Julie, but how do we proactively look at these things? Many of these tools that I’m hearing about have the ability to do regression analysis kind of real time once it’s getting data. And one of the things I’ve cautioned in our company is just that if we start interacting with some of these things, how do we stop?

(51:02):

How do you shift? How are you going to be nimble if you’re starting to see some of these things come out? Some things of concern, and it’s hard to stop recruiters once they’re moving in one direction, once you get processes and policies set up and they start moving. But if you find something that’s not going well in the processes, you got to think about, you can do this today. Recruiters can have bias in their own processes and it’s isolated to one recruiter making bad decisions or whatever it happens to be. But when you have an AI system that maybe have some bias unfortunately built in, that’s much, much, much more broad. So at some point you have to be nimble as a company to say, we have to stop doing it that way and readjust this piece or that piece. I say it again, I think we’re going to have to go this route with the volume that EY does.

(51:45):

We’re going to have to invest in some of these technologies because the people seeking jobs are looking for it. They’re looking for an easier way to get into jobs. They’re looking to utilize many different features. They have resume writing things that they can do. They can record interviews. There’s lots of ways they can get to your information and apply to your companies that way. So if you’re not ready for it, we had a whole call recently. We do a lot of virtual interviews and there’s a whole, I think students coming out of college are using things like OWL software, which can transcribe the whole interview. So now you’ve got, if your system allows it or if you’re not aware, you’ve got a whole transcription of the interview, what the hiring manager said, what the recruiter said, what the candidate said, and there’s a document out there now that exists of all those things. So thinking through these things are coming one way or another, and you really have to invest in what it’s going to mean to your company and how you’re going to react to it in a compliance realm.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (52:38):

It’s interesting, Chris, how you frame that, that it’s coming. No, it’s here. It’s here. It’s not coming, it’s here. I want to share that because what we’ve done exercise at our company, believe it or not, your vendors are already having some of the AI processes that they’re using and you don’t know that. So we had to go check that and have our vendors to attest to what they’re using and share the type of AI products that they’re using so that we can make sure that we’re aware of those and we can look into those to make sure there are no discriminatory practices that are present within their systems or their practices. So AI is here, it’s been here, but it’s here. And to your point, you’re going to have to get on board. It’s some great advantageous things that come with AI, and I think that we just got to just monitor it once again, monitor it to ensure that it’s fair and equitable across the board.

Diego Gonzales (53:26):

Yeah, I will say, Dana, so not so much on 2025, but over the last few years, one stop and start that I’ve implemented is to take the compliance mindset and to stop thinking about things in the rear view. Because a lot of compliance is looking at past data and outcomes and to start leaning in. And so one of the things, and as an unofficial ambassador of the city of Las Vegas and our conferences, the HR technology conferences, if you have an opportunity, I think there’s two HR Tech conferences annually, really eyeopening. If you want to lean in to see what’s coming, that’s the place you need to be because you see the products that are being pitched to your talent partners, to your total rewards partners, to your offboarding partners, all that technology that they use is there. And these things like AI are part of the product pitch or even use cases like Chris just shared. A lot of those are in the plenary session. So I think the start, and what I encourage all my partners to do is lean in, look at what’s coming down the pike so you’re best prepared for it.

Dana Deason (54:41):

That’s a great suggestion, Diego. And having been to the HR Tech conference in Las Vegas in September, it really does give you good insight into what’s here, what’s coming, what your HR people, teams, talent acquisition teams are thinking about. I think that’s great advice, and I think it fits with the theme that we’ve had during our discussion, which is be proactive. Be proactive with the networks that you’re developing internally and externally, being proactive with what’s likely to come. We’re going to see a continuation of state laws and the evolution of state regulations as well as a transition within the federal space on what regulations are coming. So just be proactive, ask questions, build your network. I think that’s kind of been the theme of our discussion here today. And with so much change on the horizon, 2025 is not going to be boring, dare I say.

(55:48):

It will be interesting. So I want to give you all just a shout out for joining me today, and I’ve known you for several years respect your knowledge and expertise when it comes to compliance. And I know each of our companies have a unique role within this space and a unique approach. You provided solid guidance for our listeners. I hope our listeners have taken at least one thing away from this discussion. I also know we could spend a lot more time on each of these topics. So if listeners do want to connect with you, what’s the best way to get in touch?

Diego Gonzales (56:28):

For me, please reach out on LinkedIn. Diego Gonzales, RTX, I’ll come right up. And also, if there’s a way, and I’m not sure through the, if our contacts available through DE, the website?

Dana Deason (56:44):

You should be in the Member community. Yes, that’s a good point. You can search if you’re a Member of DirectEmployers, you can search within the DE community.

Chris Liakos (56:53):

Yeah, I’ll echo. I think LinkedIn is a great one. I’m on there via that. I think you’ve seen, this is four Members of the DirectEmployers board, but I think if you go to that DE Member community, you can get access to other Board Members as well and other people there as well. So I think we offer a lot here but I know most of us would be willing to have you reach out to us directly, but there’s others as well if you have different questions just in a different way. So feel free to via LinkedIn or any other way, but there’s more out there than just the four of us is what I’m trying to say.

Dana Deason (57:24):

Yeah, and I think we do a good job of keeping the board of directors for DirectEmployers Association diverse. To your point, Chris, we do have kind of a wide range of recruiting, talent acquisition, compliance, and then also inclusion practitioners who live in this space who deal with the things you’re going through every day. So I do think that’s a great resource beyond just the four of us.

Chris Liakos (57:49):

Right

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (57:49):

Absolutely. And of course, I’m Julie O’Hara-Harvey. I can be reached on LinkedIn as well, and that’s O apostrophe H-A-R-A dash H-A-R-V-E-Y.

Dana Deason (58:03):

And I’ll join the LinkedIn bandwagon. I’m out there and you can certainly reach out to me. I would love to hear from you. And unless there’s any final thoughts, I think that’s a wrap.

Chris Liakos (58:13):

Yeah. Thanks so much for leading us, Dana.

Julie O’Hara-Harvey (58:14):

Thank you.

DirectEmployers Association (58:15):

Thank you for tuning in for another episode of the DE Talk podcast. Stay connected with DirectEmployers on Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin, or subscribe to receive updates straight to your inbox by visiting DirectEmployers.org/Subscribe where you’ll receive notifications of new episodes, webinars, events, and more.