Hiring quotas and goals in local construction projects

[odurandina]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Also Copley Place in 1984. That's just a really wrong statement.

guys/gals....... wasn't it obvious i was being sardonic for maxium effect? i'm incredulous that my snarky use of '1911' could somehow disrupt a colorful conversation.

Please pass the ketchup.

 

[KentXie]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It is an issue to hit 40% minority participation even if unions didn't exist. From the census estimates themselves, Boston is 54% and 9% Asian. An important distinction depending on whether Asians are considering minorities. Don't know that answer to that but something to keep in mind. That means the non-white, non Asian population is no more than 37% of the Boston population, yet the goal is 40% participation in the project. Seems high.

For Mass, again from census, whities are 82% of population and Asians 7%. That means 11% of state is non-white non-Asian. Again benchmarked against a 40% participation goal, which certainly is worthwhile, but may be unrealistic and not a reason to hold up the project.

Can't tell you what the current make up of unions are but I can easily see the argument that people follow their parents into the trade, and if that's so it would end up predominantly white. I believe police departments struggle with this phenomenon as well.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/25

Asians are a minority, as are Pacific Islanders. Polls and census tend to not include these two groups because they make up a small demographic (and to a certain extent, people who conducts poll don't care to reach out these two groups and these two groups tend not to speak up about it until very recently). But they definitely do not fit in the same bucket as the majority/white.

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Asians are a minority, as are Pacific Islanders. Polls and census tend to not include these two groups because they make up a small demographic (and to a certain extent, people who conducts poll don't care to reach out these two groups and these two groups tend not to speak up about it until very recently). But they definitely do not fit in the same bucket as the majority/white.

Just to derail the thread even more, IIRC the whole lawsuit against the quotas in the Boston exam schools was that there was a 35% maybe? set aside for black and Hispanic students but none for Asians meaning at the time one department of the city wasn't including them.

Frankly if we're going to be honest here, and bring the conversation back to 115 Winthrop, a "minority hiring goal" seems to me to indicate those lower on the economic scale, of which Asians at least in the Boston metro area don't tend to be from my anecdotal observations. That means based purely on demographics that 40% # is going to be really hard to hit assuming that people are already engaged on one of the many other projects going on in the region as well. While I laud the goal and the reasoning behind it, putting stuff like this as part of the building process only benefits NIMBY lunatics and not the people you're trying to help (if that was the case, you'd have to mandate the unions themselves deliver the required workforce).

 

[bostonbred]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

iAM askin "WHY? tHIs trhredd being aPPropriateD by KULTure"

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

if there's any sense to be made, I'd say its that the city needs to be careful about imposing too many feel good goals in its projects, because it gives NIMBY maniacs a ready made excuse to oppose all projects and we don't need any more impediments to getting things built around here.

 

[bakgwailo]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Just to derail the thread even more, IIRC the whole lawsuit against the quotas in the Boston exam schools was that there was a 35% maybe? set aside for black and Hispanic students but none for Asians meaning at the time one department of the city wasn't including them.

The suite was brought forth by by a female white student who was rejected admission in favor of admitting minority students with lower ISEE scores. Currently, and oddly enough, the percentage of white students basically mirrors the city's overall ratios. Asians, however, are actually vastly over represented at the BLS now by x2-x3 their ratio in the overall population.

I also have no idea what this has to do with Winthrop Square, which seems like it is slowly fading away into not happening.

 

[KentXie]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Frankly if we're going to be honest here, and bring the conversation back to 115 Winthrop, a "minority hiring goal" seems to me to indicate those lower on the economic scale, of which Asians at least in the Boston metro area don't tend to be from my anecdotal observations.

Sorry to keep derailing this thread and mods feel free to move this discussion elsewhere but the purpose of a "minority hiring goal" is not to hire those on the lower economic scale. The purpose of minority hiring goal is to offset the biasness/discrimination that people of color face when being considered for a position. There are many instances where people are being overlooked or declined for a position just because they have a strange sounding last name. The goal's purpose is an attempt to level the playing field.

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Sorry to keep derailing this thread and mods feel free to move this discussion elsewhere but the purpose of a "minority hiring goal" is not to hire those on the lower economic scale. The purpose of minority hiring goal is to offset the biasness/discrimination that people of color face when being considered for a position. There are many instances where people are being overlooked or declined for a position just because they have a strange sounding last name. The goal's purpose is an attempt to level the playing field.

Its a polite discussion so no need to apologize. I find it hard to wrap my mind around minority hiring goals not being about lifting minorities up the income ladder, presumably because they're having trouble finding work in the construction industry. That's not mutually exclusive from the purpose you state. However, few people have weirder looking last names than those of Polish descent (Italians maybe?), but I'm unawares if they're having trouble landing jobs in the trades because of it.

 

[JumboBuc]

I wasn't going to comment on this in the Winthrop Square thread, but the role of the unions in diversity hiring cannot be understated. Basically all major projects are implicitly required to use union labor, and the trade unions are the ones who make the decisions of who gets to work on the job site. If the trade unions are primarily white and male, and the developers have to use whoever the trade unions send, then the developers end up using workers that are primarily white and male.

Working to better include otherwise under-represented minorities on Boston jobsites is a laudable goal, but it's really not up to the developers. Frequently those fighting for ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic equality are "on the same side", politically, as the trade unions. And frequently developers are perceived by both groups as being on "the other side". But on this issue, I think that these traditional partisan allegiances cloud who is actually working against the efforts of whom.

Much of the rhetoric around construction jobs and hiring goals seems to be rooted in a climate of high unemployment and scarce economic opportunity for the trades. That's just not the case today. If anything, the problem in Boston is a scarcity of construction workers and tradespeople, not difficult economic prospects for those workers. This only solidifies the importance of pushing the unions to recruit and train more minority workers (and more white workers, too) and more women. We need more people who are willing and able to do the job, period, and underrepresented populations represent a great source from which to draw these potential workers. Developers would love it if there was a larger pool of workers (of whatever race and gender) that they could draw from. It's the trade unions who see it as to their advantage to keep numbers low, in order to increase the bargaining power of "their own" (who are largely white and male).

 

[Brad Plaid]

Oof. The only government involvement should be to ensure equality of opportunity for all not a predetermined outcome. Let people rise or fall based on their competencies and abilities or lack thereof. If you want a construction job make sure you take the steps necessary to qualify for hiring. If you're waiting for an embossed invitation to join the workforce because of your ethnicity/gender go back to sleep, you are not at all "woke".

And the city should have no say whatsoever that a developer use or not use union workers, that should be solely a developer decision.

 

[statler]

If you want a construction job make sure you take the steps necessary to qualify for hiring.

This assumes that those doing the hiring will always hire the most qualified person or has no preconceived 'notions' about what a more qualified applicant looks like. History has taught us this almost never the case, hence the need for government intervention.

 

[KentXie]

This assumes that those doing the hiring will always hire the most qualified person or has no preconceived 'notions' about what a more qualified applicant looks like. History has taught us this almost never the case, hence the need for government intervention.

Exactly which is impossible unless resumes contain no name and interviews are conducted not in person and voices are masked. Some examples of these preconceived notions include gender biasness, racial biasness, and body biasness (i.e. if the person is attractive or if the person has tattoos).