Advocates Ask Feds Not to Force States to Share Labor Data
The Department of Labor should withdraw a proposed rule that would force states to share unemployment data because it’s unconstitutional and contradicts state privacy laws, consumer and labor advocates said in recent comments to DOL. Government offices in California, Texas, Nevada, Connecticut and Washington raised questions and concerns about the proposal.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The department on Aug. 29 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would establish a national claims database for unemployment compensation. The agency collected comment through Sept. 29.
More than 100 consumer advocates and related organizations signed a letter asking DOL to withdraw the proposal. Signees included Center for Democracy & Technology, AFL-CIO, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Tech Equity Action.
“We request that the DOL withdraw the proposed rule until it can answer some important, basic questions about what data it will request from states, how it will use that data and protect the privacy of the people whose data it collects, and be able to demonstrate the need for such data to achieve the goals named in its proposed rule,” they wrote. “The proposed rule, as currently written, could harm workers, threaten data security, and waste federal, state, and taxpayer dollars for unnecessary and even duplicative processes.”
Citing immigration issues under the Trump administration, the group said it’s concerned unemployment data will be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “which could then engage in racial profiling to track and terrorize people.”
AFL-CIO in its comments said the NPRM is unconstitutional, dangerous to workers and “imposes sweeping mandates that trample state privacy laws and commandeer state agencies.” The American Civil Liberties Union in its comments cited cybersecurity risks, saying a single federal database “would be attractive to foreign adversaries.”
The Texas Workforce Commission is seeking clarity on questions related to data security and compliance costs. The commission said it appreciates the “intent” behind the proposal but looks forward to “continued dialogue.” The state is seeking clarity on the scope and frequency of data requests, as well as compliance costs, saying creation of a data transfer portal would require significant IT development.
The Nevada Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation said there are “significant areas of concern” with the proposed rule, including loss of state control over resident data and ambiguity about what federal agencies can request information. “The more points of entry, the harder it is to maintain data security, and it is currently unclear who would be legally responsible, were a breach of such a database to occur. It seems unlikely that DOL would be willing or able to provide remediation for individuals in every state.”
The California Employment Development Department said the rule change “increases the risk of a serious breach of personally identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers, mailing and contact information and, as a reminder, banking information.”