This Executive Order may have been issued late in the day because I haven't seen much on it.  It is on the Home Page and here:  Executive Order on Advancing Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness in Federal Contracting by Promoting Pay Equity and Transparency.

"In doing so, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall specifically consider whether any such rules should limit or prohibit Federal contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering information about job applicants’ and employees’ existing or past compensation when making employment decisions."

 Yea - this will be enforceable. Maybe another clause they can make to add another signature to an offer/quote (LOS). 

22 minutes ago, Constricting Officer said:

"In doing so, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall specifically consider whether any such rules should limit or prohibit Federal contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering information about job applicants’ and employees’ existing or past compensation when making employment decisions."

It’s pure BS, socialism, dictating employers’ hiring procedures.  IMO.

51 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

It’s pure BS, socialism, dictating employers’ hiring procedures.

Is it safe to conclude that you don't like the policy?

BTW, it's not socialism in any meaningful sense. That's claptrap. It's clientelism (client politics).

In any case, the government has dictated facets of employers' hiring procedure for decades. What's new about that?

https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices#:~:text=The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other,%2C and pregnancy)%2C or national

See Francis Fukuyama on clientelism in Political Order and Political Decay.

12 hours ago, bob7947 said:

This Executive Order may have been issued late in the day

My head immediately went to SCA, successor, predecessor, wage determinations, equivalents for federal hire and beyond.   Or stated another way no mention of the USDOL just the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council.  Oh the tangled web politics weaves for the acquisition process.

I can't really remember any meaningful legislation passed through official channels in the last year (House/Congress/President), outside of spending more money that is. 

Living in the world of EOs we are acquisition warriors. 

Don't worry folks. It'll might five years or longer for the FAR councils to develop a final rule based on the E.O. They'll almost certainly wait for OPM to issue its final rule.

We are living in a utopia of rules. We are the most rule-crazy people on the planet.

Way to go attracting all those innovative companies to government work.

@Vern Edwards "Utopia of Rules" Are you referring to this book by David Graeber? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MKZ0QZ2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It's certainly not for everyone--Graeber identified as an anarchist and was involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement (he died a couple of years ago)--but I found myself nodding along with it routinely. (Admittedly, I was sympathetic to his argument at the outset.) I wouldn't say this is his best book, but it certainly is relevant for us working inside the bureaucracy.

 

On 3/16/2022 at 7:45 AM, Constricting Officer said:

the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall specifically consider whether any such rules should limit or prohibit Federal contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering information about job applicants’ and employees’ existing or past compensation

From FAR 31.205-6(b)(2): in testing the reasonableness of compensation for particular employees or job classes of employees, consider factors determined to be relevant by the contracting officer . Factors that may be relevant include, but are not limited to, conformity with compensation practices of other firms-

                (i) Of the same size;

                (ii) In the same industry;

                (iii) In the same geographic area; and

                (iv) Engaged in similar non-Government work under comparable circumstances.

Many small business concerns cannot pay compensation experts to do compensation studies in order to establish compensation practices that meet these criteria.  Therefore, one of their tools to see what is happening in their market is to base the compensation of new hires on what they were earning in previous jobs.  A rule like that envisioned by the XO would really have an impact on small business concerns.

17 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

@Vern Edwards "Utopia of Rules" Are you referring to this book by David Graeber? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MKZ0QZ2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It's certainly not for everyone--Graeber identified as an anarchist and was involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement (he died a couple of years ago)--but I found myself nodding along with it routinely. (Admittedly, I was sympathetic to his argument at the outset.) I wouldn't say this is his best book, but it certainly is relevant for those working inside the bureaucracy.

@KeithB18Yes. I like this quote from the page 9:

Quote

The Iron Law of Liberalism states that any market reform, any government initiative intended to reduce red tape and promote market forces will have the ultimate effect of increasing the total number of regulations, the total amount of paperwork, and the total number of bureaucrats the government employs.

And this from page 149:

Quote

Everybody complains about bureaucracy. The essays in this book have themselves largely consisted of such complaints. Nobody seems to like bureaucracy very much—yet somehow, we always seem to end up with more of it.

I don't think that's entirely true, because Congress and presidents like to add programs without adding people and funds to implement them. But when you trace the history of some procurement rules you'll see that the politicians launch a program, complain about the failures of implementation, then add more rules to enforce the first rule, and so on and so forth. Think of the small business limitations on subcontracting.

Things have gotten out of hand. We have reached a worrisome state of governmental incompetence, in part because our politicians (I refuse to call them leaders) try to do too much through procurement rules and then don't provide the human resources and training needed to pull it off, assuming that it could be pulled off. It makes me question their sincerity. I think a lot of what they enact is for show, mostly with the next election in mind.

Procurement plays an important role in government operations, and these political initiatives are choking the process.

It's going to catch up with us. It's catching up with us now.

you didn't think 1.9T was actually going to fix your pot holes and bridges did you? The money is staffing diversity officers, HR compliance auditors, federal over reach on States, federal overreach on federal contractors, IRS agents. woke up.

What!!! We're not going to stop the rockfall from Coyote Wall onto Highway 14 that killed a driver in January?

I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

@Vern Edwards That is definitely true - politicians are not leaders and are not sincere. Sadly, the bureaucracy happily contributes to choking the process as well, and every year there is more and more evidence that our country is happy to underwrite the waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in the zero-sum accounting game. Maybe its just apathy or having many more important things in our lives like filling up the gas tank, taking care of our kids, helping our parents.  The focus is only on obligating the ever-increasing dollars. $30T is no small matter and it would be good for every American to understand how we get inflation through Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy. And no, we we're not going to fix Hwy 14 because our Rep (and Senators) didn't not get it slipped in under "Community Project Funding" aka the new earmarks. Before they voted on the new trillion dollar bill they (and their staffs couldn't even read it).  #politics  BILLS-117sres20is.pdf (congress.gov)