Profiling: Agency Requires
Racial Profiles from All Federal Contractors (02/14/00)
"The department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) this week
mailed the first of 7,000 surveys to federal contractors they suspect are violating its
anti-discrimination regulations, based on an analysis of more generalized work force data
that employers already are required to submit. Another 53,000 companies should receive
surveys in the fall, federal officials said."
"Labor Department officials said the information gathered in the survey will help
them better determine which firms may be discriminating against women and minorities.
"The survey is part of the [Clinton administration's] and this department's efforts
to close the pay gap," said Sally Paxton, a Labor Department deputy solicitor."
The Labor Department will not be required to go through the tedious process of
investigating and presenting a valid criminal case: DOL won't have to adhere to
rules of evidence, won't have to make a a finding of motivation and opportunity for
commission of the alleged crime, won't have to establish the existence of any racially or
sexually discriminatory policies, and certainly won't be required to presume the
accused parties innocent until proven guilty.
Thanks to such legal niceties, controversial Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman herself has
recently been found "not guilty" following an independent counsel's two-year
investigation into accusations she solicited $250,000 in illegal campaign
contributions. But Ms. Herman clearly doesn't think such niceties as due process
should be extended to federal contractors and other employers.
DOL's "proof" will consist of statistical analyses of such circumstantial data
as the number of minorities and women who live in the employment area around the
contractor and the average ratio of minorities and women employed by other contractors
performing the same type of work.
The Washington Post quoted DOL official Joe Kennedy as saying: "We look at
contractors who are involved in similar industries in similar geographic areas and compare
their profiles." Yup, he actually used the word profile!
(Kennedy is DOL's deputy director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.)
(Quoted selections from the Washington Post
article, 04/14/00, page A23, by Michael A. Fletcher)
[Wash Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11383-2000Apr13.html
DOL Gender-Based Subsidies: This
Pay Gap is a Phony (01/31/00)
"... To solve this alleged problem [of a male-female pay gap], the president asked
Congress to allocate $27 million to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Department of Labor and to pass Sen. Thomas A. Daschle's Paycheck Fairness Act, which
would set wage guidelines for different occupations." (This
ill-conceived, vote-pandering legislation would direct federal agencies to collect data
about supposed wage disparities and increase penalties for violating equal-pay
"... Unfortunately, the president is ill-served on this question by staffers who let
him believe that equally qualified women make only 75 cents on a man's dollar. This is not
true. Study after study shows that women who are in the same jobs as men, who have the
same qualifications and who don't cut back on their time in the work force because of
child-rearing, earn practically the same amount as men--about 95 cents on the dollar.
Furchtgott-Roth further questions the need for this boondoggle legilsation when she
says: "Moreover, any woman who feels that she is discriminated against
[already] has the legal right to sue. The frequently used 75-cents number is the average
full-time woman's wage divided by the average full-time man's wage. It compares women who
have chosen to be social workers to men who have chosen to be lawyers; women who majored
in English literature to men who majored in math; and women who work 35 hours a week to
men who work 48 hours.
"Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land, but the law does not say that men's
and women's average wages have to be equal. And the averages are different for many
reasons, none of which the Labor Department and the EEOC could change with $27 million.
"First, women have not been in the work force as long as men...
"Second, even though women now earn [roughly half of all] law and business degrees,
as well ... of medical degrees ... many still choose specialties that pay less.
"Third, ... they often choose careers with more flexible hours that will enable them
to combine work and family, thereby sacrificing higher pay."
(Quoted selections from the Washington Post story
Monday, Jan. 31, 2000, Page A19, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a resident fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute.)
Pay-Gap Related: Labor
Dept. Invades Corp. Records for Gender Info (02/06/99)
"The Labor Department, after years of prodding employers to eliminate the [implied or
perceived] gender wage gap with little success [without regard to consideration of the
experience or qualifications of the supposed aggrieved female employees], is stepping up
its enforcement of pay discrimination laws, forcing more and more companies to give raises
to women [allegedly] doing the same work as men [without examining the qualifications,
experience or track records of the presumably aggrieved female employees].
"Employers' groups are chafing at what they call overly aggressive tactics from the
government. The tougher enforcement comes at a time when the effort to reduce pay
inequities is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill.
"Several employer groups say the government is becoming too intrusive, making
unprecedented requests for sensitive employee information, such as the name, race, sex and
salary of every person employed at a targeted company.
" 'Nobody wants discrimination in the workplace, but it seems crazy to overburden
every employer to capture a handful of misbehaving employers,' said Barry Lawrence,
a spokesman for the Washington- based Society of Human Resource Management, among the
employer groups opposing the new enforcement efforts. 'It's like trying to catch a fish
with an A-bomb,' Lawrence said [echoing the sentiments of many constitutional
"President Clinton and numerous women and labor groups are supporting tougher
[imposition of government collection of private race and gender data, illegally and
unconstitutionally, to build an advance prima facie case for gender discrimination against
innocent businesses without proof of intent or causaility].
"When he presented his budget Monday, Clinton asked Congress for $14 million to hire
more staff to enforce equal pay laws by both the Labor Department and the Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission [using illegally collected "a priori"
discrimination data from private employers and government contractors]." (San
Francisco Chronicle, 02/06/99, page A4, by Davan Maharaj)
More Racial Profiling: Dept.
of Labor to Require Racial Head Counts! (Pay Site)
According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Department of Labor wants to require all
companies that do business with the federal government to supply the name, age, sex, race
and salary of every person employed by federal contractors. Previously, the gov't
could only demand such data if evidence of discrimination had been supplied AND, even
then, the companies were only required to allow the gov't to view the data on-site at the
companies' offices. Now, DOL wants to keep this proprietary, sensitive data in their
racial / sexual quota contractor data bank. (Based upon the Wall Street Journal
article, 01-14-99 by Glenn Burkins)
[ link for paid subscriptions only:
END of USDOL News Page.