>If you click on that link, there is another link which takes you to the
following:
>
>www.bls.gov/soc/soc2010final.pdf

Which states Principles 5 through 8 were renumbered and # was clarified, but
it doesn't state a 9th was created... and as you cited below, the subsequent
text does go on to list 9 items, so this must be the 9th principle.

>"The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau are charged
with collecting and reporting data on total U.S. employment across the full
spectrum of SOC major groups.  Thus, for a detailed occupation to be
included in the SOC, either the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Census
Bureau must be able to collect and report data on that occupation."
>
>Could this be the Principle 9 they were referring to?

Now, what is a bit odd to me is how could a Federal Register submissions
(May 2006 and May 2008)public comments were requested to change the 2000 SOC
Policies for 2010, but the Federal Register Notice wasn't finalized until
Jan of 2009. Given that is the case, no one who had submitted  SOCs for
evaluation was even AWARE there was an intent to re-write the Principles,
much less add a new one.  So how could these new rules be applied to
applications that were submitted PRIOR to the revisions to the Principles?

Also looking at the 2000/2010 and 2010/2000 tables in Appendices B and C
it's unclear which items survived (in Major Classes, NN-0000) because they
appear in the 2000 columns, but do not reappear in the 2010 columns, even
though the sub classes DO still appear.  Among those, two of my favorites,
which make PERFECT SENSE are:

15-1190 Miscellaneous Computer Operations
15-1199 Computer Operations, All Other

WTF, Mate?

>I dare anyone to tell me what this means.  So, since RIM is not a major
>group and the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau only collect
>information on major groups, we don't collect information on RIM?!  Since
>we aren't going to collect said information, RIM is therefore not a major
>group!
>
>OK, now my head hurts.  That's what I get for reading the FR so early on a
>Monday morning.

It's just another manic Monday
I wish it was Sunday
'Cause that's my funday 

I don't think anyone is going to make heads or tails out of it as it's
written... and it doesn't sound as if BLS is aching to create new primary
groups any time soon.  So next step is to see how to leverage ourselves into
another primary group, creating a number of sub classes as innocuous as the
ones listed above =)   Maybe we can gain some respect for our profession in
that manner? 

Or... we could go back to what the dude at NAICS suggested last time.. get a
recognized commodity first.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]