UPMC in the wrong I
In the news story “Pittsburgh council wants UPMC to accept extra Labor Department regulation” , UPMC spokeswoman Gloria Kreps claims that critics — who are calling on UPMC to withdraw a legal challenge that threatens important civil rights laws — are mischaracterizing the issue. This is plain wrong.
Since 1965, the federal government has required all contractors to report on hiring practices and to endeavor to hire women and people of color in numbers that reflect local demographics. These rules, which are not a quota and have repeatedly been upheld legally, have had a demonstrably beneficial effect in diversifying workforces.
UPMC has tried to evade its responsibility to comply with the law after receiving a multimillion-dollar contract to treat federal workers by claiming that it is not a subcontractor. This position has been rejected at three administrative and court levels. But rather than comply with the law, UPMC is trying to undermine it, arguing that the venerable 50-year-old law is illegal and unconstitutional.
UPMC should not only be honest that it is trying to invalidate a 50-year-old pillar of civil rights protections against discrimination, but should withdraw the legal challenge to show it is not an enemy of civil rights laws.
The writer is legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (aclupa.org).
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Duty to disclose
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Oberdorf firing
- Practicing preaching?
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- ‘Coyote Capitalism’
- The Holder problem