Reader responses to Ned on Feds -

DAILY BRIEFING

Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Diversity's elusive goals

Here are the responses we have received to the July 10 Ned on Feds column, "Diversity's elusive goals "

Neds message can be misleading.

His closing comments can cause one conclude that merit has been set aside for "targets" or "goals." The clarity of his message is that he is not the proponent for a diverse workforce that mirrors the nation that the government serves. He may find it interesting to note that statistics are a game of "appeal to authority," and statistics can always drummed up to meet one's point that one is attempting to drive.

I submit there are ample numbers of minority members in the workforce who are not only fully qualified, but excel in ability and perspective to their counterparts. This is an old bottle that no longer merits new wine.

The dribble has been drooled before and will be drooled again and again. When will the challenges and allegations of "unqualified" cease?

-Cruz Sedillo

There are diverse ways of thinking about diversity. Ned on Feds seems here to reflect the concerns of "merit"-conscious white males who are competent only in English. There are also foreign-born persons with an accent hired for their computer skills. There are people of visibly African ancestry who are hired because (given our peculiar racial history) it is imperative that role models, police officers, etc. include Blacks. Special consideration for Latinos springs in part from the fact that in key States, large numbers of people enjoy Spanish language and culture, and may not speak English at all. Federal programs that fail to communicate in Spanish will not accomplish their jobs in these regions.

Not all Latinos are multilingual, just as not all African-American police officers are effective civil rights workers. Regardless of ancestry, we are all free to learn another language. It would help if each of us would set goals for diversification within-to grow more comfortable with the interplay and interdependence of the genes of the body politic. Otherwise we'll be stuck in an increasingly boring war of quotas.

- N. Lorenzo Avila
Pres. Local l450, National Federation of Federal Employees, IAM/IAW
AFL-CIO
HUD San Francisco

The last paragraph in Ned's insightful recent column on OPM's diversity goals contains the seeds of an interesting dialog.

The OPM is a politically savvy agency which is likely to be fully aware that one of the oldest ploys in the book for avoiding controversy on an agenda is simply to not spell out your specific goals.

If we don't give the Agency credit for that level of sophistication, then we must conclude that it simply doesn't know WHAT its doing and perhaps not even why.

Either way, I strongly agree with Ned's comment that OPM would serve Federal employees well if it attempted to define "the problem" it is attempting to address. I hasten to add, however, that the Federal bureaucracy belongs to the American people, not merely its employees or any other group. This is a public issue which calls for open disclosure and debate as appropriate.

-Name withheld

I applaud your observations and your courage. As a white male employed for fifteen years by the Postal Service, I have watched the devolution of good intentions to bad practices. One of the reasons that the Postal Service will eventually be a private (or public) holding is that the caliber of its management is denigrated continuously and deliberately, not by "minorities" or "women", but by well intentioned programs that have been allowed to become self appointed regulators and pursue a path that champions diversity over merit in hiring and promotion. Thank you for your voice.

-Joe McFeron

Ned's article on "Dealing with Discrimination" was thought provoking and captured some of issues associated with the problem, but he missed the mark on some of the reasons that these problems persists.

1. Until the Congress amends the laws governing the EEOC, giving them the authority to compel governmental agencies/entities to abide by the law, just they do in forcing private entities to comply, the federal bureaucracies will continue to ignore and disregard employment rights; that is, the EEOC can only suggest and recommend that agencies clean up their act, but can not force an agency to comply. Consequently, the only recourse for an employee whose rights have been trampled is through an administrative law judge, which is a very cumbersome and drawn out process.

2. Many of the people who are in charge of EO/CR matters in agencies are so poorly trained in these subjects and employment issues that they fumble the ball in many cases. In addition, these so-called practicers are supposed to be neutral, but they are pawns of management and use heavy handed tactics that exacerbates the situation. Perhaps this leads to the impression that they nurture cases in order to guarantee job security. They are not trained to deal with early intervention or ADR and so the problems become pervasive.

3. The most important issue is the total lack of accountability on the part of managers and agency heads in ensuring that employees are treated fairly, equitably, with dignity and respect. If management officials are held accountable for their actions and performance in EO/CR before receiving merit pay or promotions, then the systemic problems would be rectified.

-Name Withheld

As a Federal personnelist, I agree with many of the points you made. Your article focuses on Hispanics, but there are similar problems among other minorities.

Your "zero sum" game is not the real issue in these areas, since there is intense competition for well qualified engineers (especially electronic and computer engineers) of any race or sex.

Your article went into some detail on the numbers of relatively uneducated immigrants. However, it remains a fact that among long term U.S. citizens/residents, comparatively few Blacks or Hispanics graduate from college with engineering/scientific degrees.

Unfortunately, engineering and the various sciences are fields that have (historically) attracted disproportionately few blacks (or women, for that matter). This is compounded by the fact that many of the engineering programs at historically black colleges and universities have yet to achieve ABET certification, so there is a VERY limited supply of candidates in the workforce who meet the Federal qualification requirements.

There is plenty of room for significant increases in representation, if qualified candidates can be found. However, with the economy doing so well, (particularly the high tech areas) the disparities in both salary and benefits (including stock options in this heady investment climate) between the Federal salaries and those in the private sector place Federal employers at a disadvantage.

It should be further noted that private sector companies are also under pressure to increase representation of minorities and women in their technical workforce.

The emphasis on finding minorities (and women) in far greater numbers than their percentage in the workforce places some serious stress on recruiters and selecting supervisors. My best guess is that the demand for minority/women engineers is a ten-to-one reverse ratio to the availability of well qualified candidates. While the numbers/percentages of minority and women engineering graduates have begun (albeit slowly) to increase, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. As Lynch states, this may take a generation for these recent graduates to become competitive for senior engineering/management positions. As you state, the goals could more appropriately focus on the percentage of minority/women engineers in the overall workforce, or perhaps the percentage of recent graduates. Keep up the thought-provoking articles.

-Al Bryden
Supervisory Personnel Staffing Specialist