Thanks to the Office of Personnel Management, federal agencies will have new tools and resources to help in the recruitment process of student interns. They will be able to use strategic skills to reel in students to specific temporary positions. In a final rule, which focused on hiring authority for post- secondary students, the Office of Personnel Management made it known that eligible students will be those pursuing a bachelors or graduate degree.

The temporary positions for these students will vary from one to four years depending on the term appointment. While the students are in school, they will have to work in General Schedule 11 level or lower. Those who have obtained their degree and fit the criteria of the further eligible requirements (like working a minimum of 640 hours during their employment), will be allowed to be appointed to a permanent position.

President Biden and his administration shared that there has been a struggle in hiring entry-level, young individuals under the age of 30, then that of 10 years ago. In essence, this new authority will give those in academic programs the opportunity and ability to get paid while at school, and while contributing to agencies with the skills they bring into the “work world.” Without the use of normal procedures in seeking employees, agencies can use different methods to recruit diverse and qualified students. For example, use program advertisements on their websites, and/or use third party platforms, essentially creating flexibility in who and how they identify and recruit applicants. With this new authority, vacancies in job positions, retirements, and budget cuts no longer pose a hindrance to federal agencies.

By: D’Andrea Tucker

Source: Agencies get another tool for recruiting and hiring student interns, OPM says | Federal News Network

Overview:

On September 5^th, 1882 New York City celebrated the first Labor Day to provide tribute to the social and economic achievements of the American worker. This, however was not considered a national holiday at the time, and the second “Labor Day” that was celebrated in 1884 was proposed by the Central Labor Union and it was known as a “Workingmen’s Holiday”.

How it began:

While most National Holidays have a known origin; Labor Days origins are rather unknown, and to this date no one knows who first proposed the idea for a worker’s holiday.

The first who was thought to propose the holiday was a man by the name of Peter J. McGuire, a general secretary for the “Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor”. He was the first to suggest a specific day in order to appreciate those ‘who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold’.

However, some research suggests that Peter J. McGuire was not the first to propose this idea. It is said that in 1882 a man by the name of Matthew Maguire, a machinist for the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, N.J proposed the idea while he was serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York.

Legislation:

As with every national holiday, the bill to introduce Labor Day was first introduced by the state of New York, but the law was first passed by the state of Oregon on February 21^st, 1887. During this same year, more states, which included Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York enacted legislation and created the “Labor Day Holiday”.

By the end of 1889, Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania also enacted the same legislation. By 1894, 23 more states had also followed suit with recognizing Labor Day as a holiday, and on June 28^th, 1884 the holiday was passed at a federal level and that it would be celebrated on the first Monday in September of each year.

Source: https://www.dol.gov/general/laborday/history

New proposals to revive the American manufacturing seems to appear every day from politicians, industry leaders, and engineers. Many of these ideas and suggestions have merit, however, they fail to recognize that manufacturing has been declining for long decades and cannot be simply resolved by tax cuts or trade policy. The United States was primarily an agricultural economy through the 19^th century. The industrial revolution then, late 19^th century, swept the landscape and transformed America once and forever. America than standing as the industrial powerhouse of the world by the 1950s produced more goods than any other nation in the world. Manufacturing stayed strong until the late-1970s and 1980s, when the US first lost its edge to the Japanese, then to the Chinese, and have now become a service economy that doesn’t produce stuff.

Although America has always been a service-based economy, where the number of employed Americans has been greater in the service sector than in manufacturing since the turn of the 20^th century. It is noteworthy that the manufacturing efforts in the US have declined dramatically in the past few decades. Industrial powerhouse cities like Detroit and Tennessee fell victims to the migration of American manufacturing. The loss of manufacturing in America manifested itself most Cleary in job losses, according to the Economist, for the first time since the Industrial Revelation fewer than 10 percent of American workers are employed in manufacturing.

However, in the most recent years, we’ve seen a comeback from some American manufacturers, even Japanese. The proposed 1.6 billion dollars manufacturing planet from Toyota and Mazda has left the states in a bidding war. The planet that is still in the solicitation processes of finding a home state is estimated to employ 4 thousand employers and tag along with a few thousand indirect jobs. This planet will be a major boost for the American economy and its manufacturing sector.

Author: Faris Souman, Sabre88 LLC

Editor’s note: Original Sources

http://www.fidelitymfg.com/about-us/#mission

http://www.fidelitymfg.com/about-us/#mission

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/04/news/economy/mazda-toyota-jobs-factory-trump/index.html

An effective cybersecurity strategy requires more than a periodic safety check. That’s the thinking behind continuous monitoring, a risk management approach that seeks to keep organizations constantly apprised of their IT security status.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology describes continuous monitoring as providing an ongoing awareness of security threats and vulnerabilities. That approach provides a sharp contrast to what has been the federal norm of annual security reviews and more thorough recertifications every three years.

The rapid proliferation of malware and other cyberattacks encourages a faster monitoring tempo. IT security vendor Kaspersky Lab said in late 2013 that it was detecting 315,000 new malicious files each day, up from 200,000 new files per day the previous year. Panda Security, a security solutions provider, reported earlier this year that 20 percent of the malware that has ever existed was created in 2013.

As the onslaught continues, the federal sector has been taking steps to improve its situational awareness. Indeed, agencies have been following continuous monitoring directives and guidelines for a few years now. The Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program, which the Department of Homeland Security manages with support from the General Services Administration, is the government’s latest take on continuous monitoring. CDM provides a more comprehensive approach and makes funding available for agencies to adopt the security practice.

“The [CDM] program reflects the evolution of continuous diagnostic programs over the past 10 years,” a DHS official said.

However, Ron Ross, a NIST fellow, acknowledged that continuous monitoring is difficult given the number of IT systems in the federal sector and agencies’ diverse missions and business functions. “It is a big job to have a good continuous monitoring program so we can give senior leaders the best information that we can possibly give them,” he added.

Why it matters

The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002 requires agencies to review their information security programs at least annually, and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130 calls for agencies to review their systems’ security controls at least every three years.

The government’s current security push, however, favors a more dynamic approach. The emphasis on continuous monitoring reflects the realization that nothing stays the same in the IT environment. The threat landscape changes with each new attack vector and malware variety, while agencies’ systems and networks are subject to frequent reconfiguration.

As a result, a security regimen that keeps the IT infrastructure locked down today might not provide adequate protection tomorrow. The moment-to-moment vigilance of continuous monitoring seeks to ensure that an agency’s security controls remain relevant.

Editor’s Note: Ideas inspired from;

John, Moore. “Can CDM change the game?– FCW.”

FCW. N.p., 10 Oct 2014. Web. 22 Dec. 2015.