A union representing Department of Labor employees—specifically those of lower rankings—has accused the DOL of discriminating against its employees. A document that fully outlines the union’s case and is set to be presented to DOL Secretary Thomas Perez describing the unfair treatment against race, gender and disabilities.
The document demonstrates definitive examples of the DOL’s blatant actions consistent with discrimination. Not only illustrating the department’s extremely transparent training and review procedures, the document proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that their actions have created a less diverse environment.
It also outlines claims that the DOL knew about the discrimination and intentionally lied about it in effort to conceal it.
Describing that the department ranks 19 out of 20 in employee satisfaction it appears that this is the least of the DOL’s concerns. The American Federation of Government Employees explains that:
“This document is by no means exhaustive of the myriad of issues that both labor and management encounter on a day-to-day basis. We view this document as a source from which we can begin discussions, initiate actions, and all commit ourselves to assuring a better results on the next Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS).”
The document goes on to list several of the noted issues displaying the DOL’s complicit discrimination and attempts to conceal them from public view. It relays that those terminated from the Department of labor, the majority of those employees seem to paint a very clear picture of discrimination. Explaining that more than half of those fired were either women or belonging to a minority group, the document explains:
“There were a total of 22 removals from DOL, of which 12 (54.5%) were women and 10 (45.5%) were minorities. The percentages of removal actions taken against black males, black females and Hispanic females were higher than their respective representation in the DOL workforce. Black males accounted for 13.64% (3 individuals) of the removals, black females accounted for 22.7% (5 individuals) of the removals, and Hispanic females accounted for 9.09% (2 individuals) of the removals, compared to their DOL workforce representation rates of 6.54%, 15.99% and 4.4%, respectively.”
They do not however discuss the reasons for the terminations of those 22 or if they were uniquely justified—this could potentially be an arguing point for the DOL.
The union also found in its search that the hiring of the those with disabilities were, “not promoted at a rate consistent with their representation in the Qualified Applicant Pools.”
The document also outlines a major flaw in the DOL’s “Career Enhancement Program” saying that it has resulted in a, “less diverse populations who do not know the DOL programs.” Instead it argues that the DOL is hiring freshly educated college graduates instead of current—and non-college educated—employees.
The document though, also doesn’t note that because of the economy, it has literally given then cream of the crop to employers. Education literally translates into years of experience now, and if you can pay someone less to do the same job because they don’t have professional experience, companies and organizations such as the DOL are going to jump on the opportunity to save a few bucks.
They wrap up their claims by mentioning that the DOL has made several blatant attempts to cover up their acts of discrimination all the while hiding behind a minority leader. The document states:
“The Department reflects its lack of commitment to the investigatory and decision by staffing the Civil Rights Center with personnel who lack legal credentials…There are very few attorneys employed to provide legal investigations and analysis of the discrimination complaints. However, because the EEO office is always directed by a minority person from a protected class, the patina of fairness is there. “If a white, Anglo-Saxon male ever directed the Civil Rights Center and found discrimination in only 1.5% of the complaints, there would be an uproar. However, because this is never the case, the slanted results are assumed to be fair. They are not.”
(See also: Congress Intent On Suing Obama)
Of all people to be exposed as a discriminating work environment, it is a bit of a shock to learn that the Department of Labor is amongst the list. But what should we expect from a federal department nowadays—just look at whose leading them by example.
What are your thoughts on this? Let us know in a comment below!