Opening Doors to Nonunion Workers (Philly construction trades vs. Minorities)

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | December 7, 2007 | Jeff Shields ,Marcia Gelbart

[gusopol3]

Opening doors to nonunion workers By Jeff Shields and Marcia Gelbart

Inquirer Staff Writers

Accusing trade unions of standing in the way of minority hiring objectives, City Council yesterday declared the $700 million Convention Center expansion open to nonunion contractors and workers - an unprecedented gesture in a city dominated by organized labor. Citing the construction industry's repeated failures to meet minority hiring goals on public projects and the unions' refusal to disclose the racial makeup of their memberships, Council voted to amend the Convention Center's operating agreement to allow nonunion workers, to help increase minority participation.

Such a change would face final Council approval Thursday, and Gov. Rendell would have to agree to it.

Mayor-elect Michael Nutter appeared to support Council's action yesterday.

"Clearly, that amendment represents the frustration that many of us have felt in creating opportunities for African Americans and Latin Americans in terms of access to the construction trades and participating in all the tremendous construction activity in Philadelphia," said Nutter. "We must create a more diverse workforce in the construction industry in the city."

The very thought of allowing nonunion contractors on a major public works project in Philadelphia stunned longtime observers.

[gusopol3]

"The very thought of allowing nonunion contractors on a major public works project in Philadelphia stunned longtime observers." Yo!

[razorback-bert]

Yikes, what next?

[traditional1]

I would like to see the City’s breakdown of racial makeup for ITS UNIONS (AFSCME) and would guess it resembles the makeup of the USPS in “diversity”.

[KC Burke]

Interesting.

[gusopol3]

maybe a Republican mayoral candidate can get close to 30% (instead of 20% like this past November)next time by playing off one against the other?

[BBell]

The question is will the Unions conspire to shut down the City in protest.

[umgud]

The unions will scream that this is diversity over quality.

[GovernmentShrinker]

If they try, I would suggest the city government and police force step aside and let the minorities “handle” the situation. The keep-the-streets-peaceful initiative can wait.

[GovernmentShrinker]

They can scream, but people will laugh the second that last word is uttered.

[BBell]

The city government and police force are heavily Unionized.

[mouse_35]

My husband and I were explaining to our son yesterday that unions were some of the most historically discriminatory groups in the US. They kept minorities from being able to work in the North for years. More African Americans were killed by unions than by lynchings during the Jim Crow era, but you never hear that in school.

[Beagle8U]

RAT Unions Vs RAT protected minorities...grab the popcorn!

[gusopol3]

that’s my general impression, too.

[Beagle8U]

They could really add to the RAT fight if they mix...RAT majority Unions/ Black minorities/ Mexican illegal non Union workers.

There heads would explode!

[GovernmentShrinker]

However, the city civil servants and the police are largely black and have zero interest in protecting the unions that provide lucrative convention center jobs almost exclusively to whites.

[denydenydeny]

As much as I have a problem with quotas and quota-ism, this is sweet.

You really have to live in the area to truly know how completely the union thugs rule the city, how arrogant and vicious they are, how utterly entitled they feel.

This is a pure wedge issue, pitting the union thugs against the minority grievance machine, and this time the union thugs have to shut up and take it. Sweet.

[Tribune7]

ping

[Tribune7]

At the height of World War II, Philadelphia Transit workers went on strike because blacks were hired.

[Mo1]

Well that is going to get pretty ugly

[brityank]

At the height of World War II, Philadelphia Transit workers went on strike because blacks were hired.

And then, as now, the Philadelphia Inquirer supported the Unions:

Not everyone opposed to the strike ^ held such high principles. Many argued the strike must end because it was damaging the war effort, nothing more. Proponents of this view believed black equality could be ‘negotiated’ in the future, once the war drew to a conclusion. ‘The major imperative is to get the cars, trains and buses running’, wrote the Philadelphia Inquirer. ‘Philadelphians and the national war effort have suffered enough through this … walkout. It must be ended … There will be time [to settle racial matters] later’. Many letters to the editor agreed. ‘Let’s do first things first’, wrote one man. ‘Get our transportation system rolling so our war workers can get to [work] … Discussion … of controversial questions should be postponed until after the war’.

[Sorry; I can't spare the $19 for JSTOR's pages.]