“Advocates
vow diversity battle over city bill”
http://www.stlamerican.com/business/local_business/article_145a5ba0-a730-11e4-ae6a-df13478a6faa.html
This article discusses a proposed bill
restricting contractors from bidding on contracts if they do not have a
Department of Labor approved apprentice program. What this means for the
community of Saint Louis City, is that only union contractors would be able to
bid on city contracts. One repercussion of this bill may cause minority owned
contracting companies to be excluded from bidding on city contracts because the
companies are small and privately owned. Also, minority advocacy groups were
not given sufficient time to attend the first meetings for the proposal of this
bill to voice their concerns. This bill shows the need for social advocacy and
how advocacy groups can help protect minorities. This bill, which may look good
on paper to some, may be a lot more harmful than the politicians supporting it
realize.
I think that the intent of the policy
was not to discriminate women and minority owned contracting companies, but to
its intent was to enhance and support unionized companies. The unintended
consequences were that minority groups would be discriminated against. Pulling
lessons from Policy class, I think some of the value standards related to
policy that are missing from this bill are Equity, Equality, Inclusion, and
Collaboration. The minority groups in St. Louis City are not being fairly
considered in the decision making process or within the bill itself. Many
social justice advocates in the community feel that there is not an alternative
version of this bill that they could approve.
Do you feel this is an issue of
diversity or a labor market competition issue?
Do you think there is an alternative
version of this bill that could be proposed that minority advocates would
approve?
How do you think approval of this bill
would affect communities that have high minority demographics?
I'm thinking this was an economic issue than unfortunately had negative implications for Minority/Women owned businesses. However, there may be one saving grace: I think there is usually a rider in most Government contracts that stipulates a certain percentage of Minority/Women owned business must participate in any project. That means that the larger (usually Majority dominated) contractors will sub-contract out to some of these smaller companies in order to meet those diversity requirements. This system can help the smaller outfits that might not be strong enough to handle a larger projects. The downside is that sometimes White male owned businesses masquerade as Women-owned (in the paperwork) in order to get business that would normally be reserved for those firms.
ReplyDeleteI feel this is both a diversity issue and labor market competition issue. Often times many people believe that minority companies can not afford to actual complete the work that needs to be done, or they are not qualified to complete the work. So then you have other companies who come in to bid on contacts who have no idea whats going on in the community and what really needs to be done to help. Rather they come in with their own agenda of what they feel needs to changed based on what they feel is an eye sore within the community. yes i feel there should be an alternative version of the bill, but are the legislators willing to really listen to what the minority community have to say objectively. Are they willing to say ouch, we are sorry how can we work together fix this so that everyone is included and have the same opportunity. I think the approval of this bill withiout any changes would increase things such as redlining, gentrification, crime rates.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there should be an alternative bill to combat the diversity issue. By excluding non-union contractors, you eliminate many of the minority contractors who have actual ties to the communities they may be focusing on. People in minority communities probably do not want union contractors who are unfamiliar with what actually needs to be done in their neighborhood to head construction efforts. Excluding non-union contractors may rip the people in minority neighborhoods of their voice in the matter. If the saving grace Kerry mentioned is what is happening, I would hope that that percentage of participation is enough for minority contractors to give their input into the construction efforts based in communities familiar to them.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stlamerican.com/news/political_eye/article_f0481e56-a765-11e4-a478-83bbaa45c43e.html?mode=jqm
Here is a related article about the "right to work" bill imposed by Courtney Curtis. The focus of this article is on the inequality amongst unions and I think it invites a different angle on the issue.
Curtis says his bill is about fighting for equality within construction unions. His bill is meant to prohibit employers in the construction industry “from requiring certain persons to become members of a labor organization as a condition or continuation of employment.”
While others (minority and non-minority union workers) argue that his approach will not increase minority inclusion in unions, MOKAN executive director Yaphett El-Amin asks what will.
I find myself asking the same question. Curtis's intentions seem good, but current union members do not think his approach will work. If they are acknowledging that minority inclusion in unions is an issue, then what efforts are they making to change that, if any?
What do you think? What should be done to increase minority inclusion in unions?
There have been issues in the past with unions and minority inclusion. It seems to me that the city should be more focused on increasing the revenue for smaller-minority owned local businesses than creating obstacles based on "reports of poor quality work". The tone from French and others cited in the article seems a bit disrespectful. I can't imagine that he truly didn't know the city's proposal mirrored the counties and if he didn't, it implies a lack of research and expertise in the area.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article, Karla. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I am interested to see the outcome of this proposed bill.
ReplyDelete