Zašto SAD može prestati prikupljati podatke o rasi i rodu na radnom mjestu

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken a step toward eliminating a longstanding requirement that mandates employers to report annual data on the racial and gender composition of their workplaces. In a 2-1 vote, the Republican-majority commission approved a proposal to rescind the EEO-1 report, a regulation that has been in place since the 1960s. The decision follows a contentious debate over the role of such data in monitoring workplace discrimination and ensuring equitable hiring practices. The EEOC, established in 1965, is tasked with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws and investigating claims of bias against protected groups. Its current leadership includes Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a former EEOC commissioner who has consistently criticized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Lucas argues that the EEO-1 report conflicts with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. She contends that the data collection process risks undermining the principle of colorblindness in employment practices and raises constitutional concerns. The EEO-1 report compiles aggregated demographic data from approximately 50 million workers across the country. Employers must submit this information without identifying individuals, focusing instead on broad categories such as race and gender. The data serves as a critical tool for tracking workforce representation and identifying patterns of inequality. Researchers and policymakers rely on these statistics to assess progress in reducing disparities and to inform legislative and regulatory decisions aimed at promoting fairness. Supporters of the report argue that the data is essential for transparency and accountability. Sharon Block, executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, emphasized that the reports merely provide a snapshot of workforce demographics without compelling employers to make specific hiring decisions. She noted that the data does not infringe on employer autonomy and should not be viewed as a threat to free enterprise. Block, who previously served on the National Labor Relations Board under President Barack Obama, stressed that the absence of such data could hinder efforts to address systemic discrimination. The proposed change comes as the EEOC faces internal divisions. Only one Democratic member, Kalpana Kotagal, remains on the commission, having been appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. The shift reflects broader ideological differences within the agency regarding the balance between data-driven oversight and the principles of equal opportunity. While Lucas asserts that the EEOC will still require demographic data during investigations into alleged discrimination, she acknowledges the financial burden on employers, estimating the cost at $275 million annually. The EEOC itself spends around $4 million per year to administer the program. The potential removal of the EEO-1 report has sparked concern among advocacy groups and labor experts. They warn that the loss of this data could limit the ability of regulators to detect and address ongoing discrimination. Without comprehensive demographic information, it becomes more difficult to track disparities in hiring, promotions, and pay, particularly for marginalized communities. Critics also highlight the importance of such data in supporting legal challenges and shaping policies that promote workplace equality. The proposal now enters a 30-day public comment period before moving forward with a formal hearing scheduled for August 11. During this time, stakeholders will have the opportunity to present arguments for or against the change. The outcome of this process will determine whether the EEOC continues to collect workforce demographic data or shifts its focus toward alternative methods of addressing discrimination. Regardless of the result, the debate underscores the complex interplay between data collection, civil rights enforcement, and the evolving landscape of workplace equity in the United States.