11.12.07
Making Things Fair And Equal?
How many people know that the government has rules regarding “disadvantaged” businesses? I would be willing to bet that not too many people do, yet if you have ever worked for the government and have been subjected to these rules, you will never forget the nightmares that the policies create.
So just what does the government consider “disadvantaged” business? Why, woman or minority owned, of course. Yet, how is it that these businesses are disadvantaged? Worse yet, how can the government mandate that a certain percentage of business that they engage with must be woman or minority owned? Is this really a necessity in this day and age? Since government is supposed to be a tool for the people, I would have thought that making decisions about how money is spent should be up to the taxpayer, yet the taxpayer often has no idea how much waste is created by these sorts of mandates.
As a former government worker (thanks to the military), I first got exposed to the idea of “disadvantaged” businesses when it came time to order repair parts. I used to have to look up parts that I needed and choose who to purchase them from based on availability from “disadvantaged” sources instead of price. Many times I had to spend much more (often times thousands of dollars more) than id I had purchased the parts from a a mainstream source. Yet those were the rules, and we had to abide. The same rules applied to service, contract work etc.
Yet those were the rules. So-called “disadvantaged” business had to get theirs.
Sadly, this was just one example of sticking it to everybody else in the name of making things fair and equal. Not only does this take business away from people who are often much more qualified, but it does so on the back of the taxpayer with a one-two knockout.
Yet even knowing how the system worked, I was still surprised to hear about the “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” (DBE) program through the Department of Transportation. It would seem that the DOT works to “ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts…” It would seem that this program is designed to ensure a “level playing field” to make up for past and current discrimination against “disadvantaged” businesses.
Say what?
First off, the DOT defines “disadvantaged” as:
“The Department presumes certain groups are disadvantaged, including women, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, Subcontinent Asian-Pacific Americans, or other minorities found to be disadvantaged by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).”
So basically anybody other than white males qualify for this program. Unless you’re handicapped or have some other “disadvantage” in which case you qualify. But how do they justify this? How do they “presume” that anybody other than average white people are disadvantaged? It sounds awfully biased to me. In fact, I would almost be willing to say that they are trying to make up for past discrimination much more so than current, which is wrong. Absolutely wrong.
But what happens when this policy is put into practice? Well, pretty much exactly what you would expect. It opens people up to get into trouble when they fail to meet these standards.
Take, for example, various MNDOT projects around Minnesota. According to this article, the Minnesota DOT is having some trouble with DBE.
“Federal investigators are examining two high-profile transportation projects overseen by the Minnesota Department of Transportation amid claims that goals on directing work to women and minority-owned businesses are often missed.”
Should this be a real issue? Should this be something that federal investigators should be investigating (again at the taxpayer’s expense)? To me, it should be a non-issue as long as the work is done well and done for a reasonable price, regardless of who does the work. Isn’t that part of what living and working in a free society means?
Even if you think that it’s acceptable for the government to impose these rules on itself, you would think that private businesses would be free to do work as the see fit; yet that is not the case.
“Federal rules adopted nearly 30 years ago require private contractors bidding for public work to make solid efforts to subcontract up to 10 percent of it to DBEs.”
So, in other words, even if you do work for the government as a private contractor, you are still expected to subcontract part of your work to “disadvantaged” businesses. Is that fair to “non-disadvantaged” business owners? I wouldn’t think so. Like many other government “nondiscrimination” programs, the program actually discriminates against average people. This does not create fairness or equality, nor does it create a level playing field. It gives privileges to select groups simply because they are presumed to be disadvantaged.
Nice.
So looking ahead, what does DBE mean for MNDOT? Well, as far as the I35 bridge project:
“MnDOT has set a DBE goal for the new $237 million I-35W bridge project in Minneapolis at 10 percent. They want as much as $23 million in business directed to women and minority-owned companies.”
And rumor has it that part of the reason that MNDOT went for the contractor they did (Flatiron), even though they were the most expensive, was due to their affirmative action and DBE policies. As one person put it, “they (the bridge contractor) should have a work crew that closely matches the demographics of the area.”
So again I ask, is this right? Shouldn’t the deciding factor on how money is spent by the government be cost and quality of work instead of who owns the company or who subcontracts out to “disadvantaged” businesses the best? This is just plain silly. It’s like affirmative action on a grand scale. This sort of thing has to end.
Holly said,
November 12, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Wow…that is just…wow. Once again, I am speechless.
mpinkeyes said,
November 12, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I think this quote from your sidebar sums it up:
“What the hell kind of country is this if I can only hate a man if he’s white?”
-Hank Hill, 1997
By making such an effort to not discriminate against all these other groups, the white male is actually being discriminated against.
All these programs, by putting race above all other qualifications, is actually a racist policy. Like you said, they are trying to make up for past discrimination and in the process are hurting the average man.
micky2 said,
November 12, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I had to open my own business with 250.00 ten years ago.( MY 250.00 ! )
I grossed about 80,000.00 my first year
Getting a small busniess loan in the beggining from uncle sam was impossible. So I improvised and hustled my ass off.
I live in Hawaii, and its very ethnically diverse here.
Why is it that some refugee or immigrant whos only been here a couple of months can get a grant upwards of 50,000.00 and has never done a thing for this country yet or paid any taxes ?
viciemonkey said,
November 13, 2007 at 4:42 am
What happened to giving the job to the best qualified person? We will never be able to say that we treat people with equality until we take away the mandates that require us to do so. As a woman, not much else feels better than to work alongside a few men, doing the same labor, making the same pay, and making the same gross jokes that accompany these situations. That’s equality.
arclightzero said,
November 13, 2007 at 8:12 am
Pinkeyes, interestingly this goes above race. This goes into gender, disability, sexuality, religion… For all intents and purposes, if you’re not a straight, white, christian, male American you are entitled to preferential treatment. How screwed up is that?
Even if the “average” white American male is the minority in an area, which I assume is the case where Micky lives (correct?), you’re still considered to be the “advantaged” class and everybody else is put on a pedestal above you.
arclightzero said,
November 13, 2007 at 8:16 am
In this era, the best qualified person often times means the best person to fit the government mandates on hiring practices. Over the years, the number of people I have seen in jobs that they were not qualified for and were hired simply because of their “protected” status and affirmative action mandates is off the charts.
It’s like I said before, it doesn’t breed equality, it breeds contempt and frustration towards people in those “protected” classes. How does that help eliminate discrimination?
micky2 said,
November 13, 2007 at 9:34 am
Yea, I guess I should of mentioned that I am the classic pic of a white American male.
A few weeks ago the cashier at the store did something that raised my eyebrows. She sent a guy in a wheelchair to the front of the line. Ahead of about 6 people.
I thought to myself ” gosh, all he’s doing is sitting down ” But naturally I didnt say anything or else I probably would been stoned at the town square.
You want equallity ? Get in line right behind me holmes, and you’ll be just like the rest of us.
micky2 said,
November 13, 2007 at 9:50 am
I should of mentiond also that here in Hawaii, I am the minority. The other ethnicities perform a lot of preferential treatment for each other in the job market.
But hey, I dont want to work someplace where I’m just placed there out of sympathy for what I am, fuck that.
Nothing worse than always having to look over your shoulder all the time.
I went through something like that in L.A.
I needed a job, anything. So I took a job at a furn. warehouse that shipped across the country.
The whole warehouse staff was Mexican, and they spoke very little english.
Some of these guys had been there a year or two in the same position. I was there 4 or 5 months and progressed to management. Talk about resentment !
Documents I filled out determening shipping destinations with my signatures on them had been alterd. Freeking Colorado was going to N.Y.
I think we all get the idea.
mpinkeyes said,
November 13, 2007 at 7:34 pm
You’re right, it does go beyond race. How is it that dividing everyone into groups is supposed to bring equality? I thought seperate but equal went out the window years ago. How can giving preferential treatment to any group of people be considered discriminatory? I don’t care if the group that is given special treatment is a politically correct group, giving one group preferential treatment is discriminatory.
micky2 said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:39 pm
It all boils down to the left actually discriminating against themselves.
Does that sound like a paradox ?
If you put all the intentions of the left together and sift it out, thats what you get.
Rational thought has become a hate crime.
Anyone who would like to hear the best description of todays liberals “MUST” watch this video
On March 5 the Heritage Foundation turned its podium over to comedian/commentator Evan Sayet for his talk “How Modern Liberals Think.” I’d never heard of him before, but I’m glad I have now. The video of his talk is 48 minutes long. The talk is brilliant and worth every minute of your time.
micky2 said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I guess the link would help, here ya go
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017172.php
arclightzero said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Do you ever get the idea that the liberals are guided by guilt and they’re determined to make the rest of us pay for their guilt? I mean, it’s the only way to justify screwing people over who have never done anything wrong. I mean, sure, fine, bad shit happened at one time, but making us pay for it now to make up for it just isn’t right. It’s time they came to terms with that guilt and stopped trying to force it on the rest of us. If they want to feel guilty and sacrifice certain elements of their lives to atone for it, fine, but it should end right there.
micky2 said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Their self loathing is our fault !
Talk about lack of accountability !