Minority employees at the CFPB allege pervasive discrimination there, reports the Washington Times. The
discrimination itself is unproven, but it seems clear that minority
employees have been subjected to retaliation for speaking out about what
they perceive as discrimination. Such retaliation is typically illegal
even when the employee’s complaint of discrimination turns out to be
mistaken.
The CFPB responded to allegations of discrimination in pay by
essentially raising employee salaries in general, at taxpayer expense
(the agency funds itself out of money it takes from the Federal
Reserve): minority “employees say the pay increases are just
restitution, but because almost everyone got bonuses and promotions, it
just raised the playing field instead of equalizing it.” The net result
was to reward the agency for its own wrongdoing.
Federal agencies explicitly receive preferential treatment compared
to private companies in federal labor and employment laws. Federal
agencies are completely exempt from punitive damages under federal
employment and civil-rights laws. And a deadline for suing that is 300
days against a private employer may be only 30 days against a federal
agency.
I discussed this in yesterday’s Washington Times:
Big government means ideological double
standards. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new federal
agency headed by an Obama crony, is illegally and without consequence
retaliating against employees who allege discrimination (“Bureaucrats
gone wild: Feds describe racial hostility, discrimination inside new
Obama agency,” Web, Aug. 27).
Yet under a recent Obama executive order,
private companies can now be entirely barred from federal contracts if
bureaucrats or courts say they committed labor-law violations. This
includes even very vague laws that large companies inevitably violate by
mistake (“Obama fantasizes about more executive power, signs new order
on federal contractors,” Web, July 31). Thus, some private companies
face a financial death sentence for the very conduct that bureaucrats
engage in with impunity.
President Obama’s executive order will
increase the cost of government contracts by making them riskier and by
enabling trial lawyers to extort huge payoffs from companies. The
president claims he has the power to issue this order to promote
efficiency in federal procurement, but many laws covered by his order
seek to promote social justice at the expense of efficiency. Ironically,
one of those laws (the Davis-Bacon Act) not only requires excessive and
uneconomical wages for certain workers, but also had racist origins.
Federal employment laws are enforced primarily by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, which frequently flouts labor laws,
including but not limited to the very laws it is charged with enforcing.
As law professor Jonathan Adler has noted,
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring
that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own
employees, an arbitrator has ruled."
The EEOC has a much worse record of labor and civil-rights violations
than most corporations and agencies with a similar-size workforce.
The EEOC was found guilty of systematic, illegal, reverse discrimination (discrimination against white males) in Jurgens v. Thomas,
29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1561, 1982 WL 409 (N.D.Tex.1982). Even
after that verdict, the EEOC continued to illegally discriminate against
its white male employees. See, e.g., Terry v. Gallegos, 926 F.Supp. 679 (W.D. Tenn. 1996).
The EEOC has also lost a number of sexual harassment lawsuits brought against it. See, e.g., Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439 (3rd Cir.1994).
In short, the EEOC is like “the fox guarding the henhouse,” argued
CEI's John Berlau in a May 19, 1997, news story he authored for Insight before he came to CEI.
Recent EEOC guidance has made more difficult and costly for employers to hire, reducing employment."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.