Pittsburgh council wants UPMC to accept extra Labor Department regulation
Pittsburgh City Council joined several labor and civil rights groups on Wednesday in demanding that UPMC drop a 9-year legal challenge to the Labor Department's attempt to treat three of its facilities as federal subcontractors.
The stakes for the hospital system are an extra set of affirmative action requirements not imposed on most businesses.
Councilman Daniel Lavelle said that if UPMC wins its challenge, no federal contractor would have to comply with those regulations. Council President Bruce Kraus said the council has a tradition of supporting workers' rights and, regardless of an employer's size, if it endangers those rights, “We're going to stand up and call them out.”
UPMC is Pennsylvania's largest private employer, with 62,000 employees.
UPMC spokeswoman Gloria Kreps said the council and other groups continue to mischaracterize the dispute between UPMC and the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
The office in 2004 sought to classify UPMC's Braddock, McKeesport and South Side hospitals as “subcontractors” on a federal contract awarded to the UPMC Health Plan, despite regulations that specify they're not subcontractors, she said. UPMC operations that have federal contracts comply with the law, she said.
The McKeesport hospital is the only one still open.
Brian Bowling is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.