Department of Labor: Few Women in Constructions Jobs Due To "Blatant Discrimination" [SWA]

    A post appeared Monday on the official blog of the Department of Labor entitled "Construction Jobs are Good Jobs – for Women, Too!"  Although the title sounds upbeat, the tone of the post is hostile and accusatory.  Donna Lenhoff, a senior civil rights adviser at the DOL, wrote the entry, and to hear her tell it, one gets the impression the split between men and women in the industry would be much more evenly balanced if not for harassment, hostile work environments, and blatant discrimination.  Any suggestion that women might not choose construction work due to the demands of the job is dismissed as detached from reality:

Those who oppose taking affirmative steps to end gender discrimination in construction may argue that women’s low participation reflects a lack of ability or willingness to perform “dirty and dangerous” jobs. However, such assertions are not founded on reality. In fact, women’s representation in many “dirty and dangerous” jobs comparable to construction has increased over the past 30 years.

    The post links to a document published in May 2012 that bemoans the lack of progress on a 35-year old goal set by the DOL's Office for Federal Contract Compliance Programs to "for women to work 6.9 percent of federal construction contractors’ work hours[.]"  The tone of the document mirrors that of Lenhoff's article.  Among the reasons cited:

• "gender inequity in construction vocational and training programs"
• "women are often pushed by mentors, family, and friends into occupations that align with traditional gender stereotypes"
• "gender stereotypes, sexual harassment, a lack of awareness about opportunities in construction, and insufficient instruction"
• "barriers that women face in pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs drive their miniscule share of the field"

    Nowhere in either the May 2012 document or the blog post is any suggestion that there might be alternate reasons for the low representation of women in construction.  It does not seem to occur to the authors that traditional reasons for the overwhelming dominance of men in the field might still hold sway, such as physical strength or risk-acceptance. (One does not have to observe a playground for long to recognize which sex is more risk-prone.)  If women are underrepresented, the authors infer it must be because "women have traditionally been excluded from entering these good jobs and continue to be denied their fair share of employment in the industry."
    No doubt the reasons listed by the authors at the DOL play some role in the status quo, and the stereotype of a construction site is likely well based in reality.  Yet a myopic view of the issue and an apparent desire to equalize the sexes in all areas does a disservice to both men and women.  Men are stereotyped as Neanderthals crudely defending their turf at all costs, and women are infantilized as being helpless to break into a field where everyone knows they would if they only could be protected.  Yes, "blatant discrimination" should be stamped out.  But sometimes disparate impact is simply disparate choice by women (and men) who know what career is the best fit for them.

Labor Dept. App Contest: Identify Businesses Who Treat 'Their Workers Fairly and Lawfully'

    As the Department of Labor (DOL) celebrates the 75th anniversary of the Fair Labor Standards Act this year, the DOL is celebrating by sponsoring a Smartphone app contest to help consumers identify businesses who treat "their workers fairly and lawfully."  The DOL requests [emphasis added] that contestants

develop a smartphone application that will transform the way the public is able to use departmental enforcement data.  By providing consumers with information at their fingertips about which businesses have treated their workers fairly and lawfully, the creator of this application will help empower consumers to make informed choices about where to bring their business.

    According to the Labor Department, the finished product should integrate

the department's publicly available enforcement data with consumer ratings websites, geo-positioning Web tools, and other relevant data sets, such as those available from state health boards.

    Presumably the data incorporated into the app would consist only of past infractions for which the targeted businesses have already been cited and penalized.  The DOL seems to suggest the app could be used as something of a blacklist for job-seekers and other businesses:

The app could also prove a useful tool for job seekers and for companies that are deciding which firms they may want to do business with.  It could also help individuals get in touch with the Labor Department if they have any questions.

    The winner of the contest will be announced in November, and "the developer will meet with high-ranking government officials and private-sector entrepreneurs" during a complimentary trip to Washington D.C. for the awards ceremony.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

I'm Just a Government Who Cain't Say 'No'

    In case you hadn't heard, Benefits.gov is celebrating its 10th anniversary.  (Don't worry, I think there's still time to get a card.)

    As you can see, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis already beat you to it with her best wishes, but better late than never.

    According to a recent Washington Post story, 96% of Americans have received benefits at one time or another.  In case you are one of the 4%, here's your chance!  Benefits.gov describes itself as "the official benefits website of the U.S. government, providing citizens with an online eligibility prescreening tool to help you find government benefits that you may be eligible to receive".  I decided the best way to celebrate this milestone (the "Tin" anniversary for you traditionalists) was to use the handy Benefit Finder to see not what I could do for my country, but what my country could do for me.

    Just to make things interesting, I decided to answer the questions in such a way that would limit the possible benefits as much as possible.  I ran a few scenarios, finally settling on the one I believe produces the minimum returns.  However, if anyone can beat my low score, I'll link to you (within reason.)  I am linking to my full list of responses to the questions, but in the interest of space, I'll briefly summarize.

    The composite I created (let's call him Benny Seeker) is a 32 year old, single white male.  He has a master's degree, no debt to speak of, and earns $500,000 per year.  He has 12 years experience in his field, is already eligible for retirement, and has never worked for the government.   Benny has no dependents, no disabilities, and no military service, and no one in his family is disabled or has any military service either.  He has no health problems and is fully insured.  Finally, I left his citizenship in doubt by selecting "other" for citizenship status.

    In a perfect world, the website would return a "Get lost, you gold digger!" and find a way to phish for Benny's email address and send a bill for the wear and tear on the website.  However, in the real world, Benny is given a list of 37 (count em, 37) possible benefits for which he is eligible.  While the website contains the disclaimer that it "cannot guarantee your eligibility for any program," it is also quick to point out that it "is not designed to be a comprehensive listing of all programs for which you may be eligible."  What is going on here?

    Among the possible benefits returned are 4 under the category of "Career Development Assistance" despite Benny's master's degree and his $500,000/year after 12 years of work.  There are three under Child Care/Child Support despite Benny's complete lack of spouse, dependents, and/or (and this one seems fairly important) children.  Another head scratcher is the Loan/Loan Repayment result of 13 in the face of Benny's professed lack of debt.

    So is Benefits.gov a government Ado Annie who "cain't say no", but is really just leading on people like Benny?  In other words, are most of these 37 possibilities useless?  Frankly, I prefer that option to the alternative.  If Benny is really eligible for even a quarter of these possibilities, that makes nine public spigots Benny can hook up to.  With results like that, the 96% in the Washington Post story will be 100% in no time.  Come to think of it, based on Benny's murky citizenship status, maybe more than 100%.  Happy Anniversary to us.

Truth in Government

    Finally, some refreshing honesty from a federal government cabinet department:

    Quite frankly, the entire Obama administration has been a work-in-progress for three and a half years now, and perhaps there's no better example than the Department of Labor, given the dismal employment situation.  In his Friday column, James Taranto cited a piece by James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute that included the following chart showing the Obama team's projected unemployment figures versus reality.

Work in Progress indeed.  Or, given May's unemployment increase from 8.1% to 8.2%, a name change to Work in Regress might be appropriate.   But in the meantime, given the fact that the Senate has now gone nearly three years without voting a budget, perhaps the Senate Budget Committee could take a cue from the transparency of the Department of Labor and rename their blog “(This page intentionally left blank.)”