TOPICS

A prominent civil rights group on Saturday vowed to step up its efforts to protect federal work from contractors, arguing that the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative disproportionately endangers jobs held by minorities and women.

"We need to get together and lay out a game plan [to prevent outsourcing]," said Leroy Warren, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Federal Sector Task Force, at a Jan. 17 civil rights summit. The NAACP will join forces with federal employee unions and women's rights groups in attempts to demonstrate that minorities have the most at stake in public-private job competitions, Warren said.

Minorities and women hold many of the federal jobs targeted in competitive sourcing studies, the civil rights advocates claimed during a panel discussion. Panelists added that they are worried agencies will hand equal employment opportunity-related work to contractors who are ill-equipped for the jobs.


RELATED STORIES

The Postal Service employs a high percentage of minorities, said panelist Marcia Johnson-Blanco, legislative director of the National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees. Historically, Postal Service jobs have helped propel many African-American families into the middle class, she added.

But these jobs are no longer secure, Johnson-Blanco said, pointing to recommendations released by the Commission on the Postal Service in July 2003. The commission suggested that the mail agency consider outsourcing certain tasks, including delivery truck repair and real estate management.

Federal agencies must follow stringent guidelines on equal opportunity employment, but contractors are not necessarily subject to the same rules, said panelist Patricia Wolfe, president of Federally Employed Women (FEW), a 3,500-member advocacy group. "Contracting out should not be the first choice, it should be the last course of action," she said.

Competitive sourcing is also a concern for disabled federal workers. These workers would have a hard time finding work in the private sector if they lost their federal jobs, Wolfe explained. Contractors are not bound by veterans' preference rules, said Jacqueline Simon, public policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees. Simon was also a panelist.

But Mark Wagner, vice president of government relations for Johnson Controls Inc., a Florida-based contractor, said on Tuesday that contractors operate under similar guidelines on workplace diversity.

"I don't know what different rules we've got," Wagner said. "We [are subject to] equal employment opportunity standards."

Wagner added that he has not seen any statistics showing that outsourcing hurts minorities. Job competitions could in fact have the opposite effect, he said, especially if small minority- or women-owned businesses win projects.

Contractors must grant federal employees the right of first refusal when hiring workers for government projects, Wagner explained. "In fact, many contractors will want to hire existing workers. The myth that there's a lot of displacement going on is simply not true."

But union-backed rules written into some agencies' fiscal 2004 appropriations measures actually make it more difficult for minority- and women-owned businesses to compete for government contracts, said Cathy Garman, vice president for public policy at the Contract Services Association, on Tuesday.

Provisions in the Interior and Defense Department appropriations bills, signed into law last fall, grant federal employee teams a cost advantage in streamlined competitions with 10 to 65 jobs at stake. Such rules put smaller private companies, which are more likely to be owned by minorities, at a severe disadvantage in bidding on the work, Garman argued.

Most of the current evidence that competitive sourcing disproportionately affects women and minorities is anecdotal, Simon acknowledged. But research completed by the Institute for Women's Policy Research in October 2000 found that federal agencies typically offer women better pay and benefits than contractors do, she noted.

The NAACP will work alongside federal employee unions to collect additional data on the impact of competitive sourcing on federal employees, Warren said Saturday.

COMMENTS

  • Was it any surprise that minorities and women would take the blunt of the dislocation from contract outsourcing? Of course not and I have personally seen it in the work place. The NAACP is right on track with this and should get Jessie Jackson right in there fighting for fairness and to stop this racial outsourcing. Believe me the ratios of blacks to whites and asians are extremely frightening for minorities. Many government jobs are contracted out to cities where minorities just don't live thereby limiting the jobs to local residents of those towns. One of the major Aerospace companies won a contract to provide maintenance to the navy at their relocated Top Gun school in Fallon, Nevada. Needless to say there aren't many minorities living in the freezing winter and blazing hot Fallon, Nevada. Out of maybe 80 employees I saw two black males and a couple women working for this company. In another instance of contract maintenance the supervisor and hiring authority for the company was of asian decent and needless to say he hired all asian workers until complaints were filed by federal employees about the companies hiring practices. Go Jessie Go, and turn on the light so the cockroaches can be seen scurrying around trying to hide.
  • I beleive outsourcing will have an effect on Veteran's preference. How many contractors give Veteran's preference? I also don't believe that this is about saving tax money, it's about creating profit.
  • Suprise, Suprise, Suprise! AFGE and the NAACP have teamed up to oppose the Bush administration - oh, and its competitive sourcing program. Hey, let's not let the facts get in the way - let's just take another cheap shot and get it published. Facts? Well, take for example that there is no evidence of a disparate impact, but we will stop it anyway! Take, for example, that The Bush Agenda does not apply to the Postal Service - but its a good example anyway! Take, for example the unknown impact, if any, of competitive sourcing on veterans' preference, but lets raise that one too - anyway. Or take, for example, the suggestion that federal competition with the private sector should be suspended to protect certain groups regardless of cost or performance. I think that is what upsets me the most - the less than subtle idea that federal employment is and should be nothing more than a social program. Hey, here's a solution: let's borrow more money, convert all commercial work to in-house federal performance, directly hire the increased number of unemployed into government and then think up some plan - like going to Mars - to spend it on. We can do it all in-house! Who would not be happy with that? Cheaper services, a postive long-term impact on society generated by a bigger government, reduced unemployment, reduced welfare costs, equity in the workplace, wider access to Federal health benefits, reduced taxes, less cronyism, better and more accountable performance and, oh yes, the impact of having more federal retirees.