Jobs must not go to white male construction workers
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
This offends me on so many levels, I'm unable to determine where to start.
The potential "racism" in the thread isn't even what offends. It's that these people in Washington are now in power and trying to profoundly shape social life and issues of equality through the dangerous power of the federal government.... This little clip really demonstrates this quite well.
The feds want to direct the economy at a micro level like we haven't seen before. Economic stimulus plans aren't economic stimulus plans, but huge redistribution of wealth designed to shape the social and economic landscape of the country.
The potential "racism" in the thread isn't even what offends. It's that these people in Washington are now in power and trying to profoundly shape social life and issues of equality through the dangerous power of the federal government.... This little clip really demonstrates this quite well.
The feds want to direct the economy at a micro level like we haven't seen before. Economic stimulus plans aren't economic stimulus plans, but huge redistribution of wealth designed to shape the social and economic landscape of the country.
No.
The topic isn't the subject line.
Defend or condemn what is going on there.
And the issue there isn't race, though we could discuss the double standard of such a statement (Think it'd be ok if a hypothetical Republican had made a statement that jobs shouldn't only go to black welfare ex-convicts). It's about the role of government.
If a stimulus plan is to be enacted, it should be done with the goal of STIMULATING the economy quickly. Creating jobs. Ideally it would do something that established an infrastructure that continued to aid the creation of wealth into the future. The Democrats, in the classic deception of the left, are using this so-called "stimulus" as nothing more than a giant pork project to move their social and spending agenda, an agenda that will do NOTHING to stimulate the economy.
The banking fiasco. The panic to raise taxes and still radically increase government spending. This is all going to be catastrophically bad for the country.
Well, Cal, I was actually just trying to point out how the right is quite happy creating sensationalist copy as well... The headline is crafted to polarize, and create a race issue as well. Obviously this is trying to draw in angry white men. Base readership I would imagine.
A little side note... demanding or ordering me isn't a great way to get me engaged in a subject...
torquemonkey
Dedicated LVC Member
Good afternoon Foxpaws,
Perhaps it's the hour of the day or, who knows. I am not following you in above retort. Would you enlighten me as to what it is you are saying, in plain English, in the above quote? So as to support you in knowing your audience, I am a "Skilled Illiterate," Construction Worker.
Q1: What do you mean by saying, "Angry White Men?" Are you in agreement to the noted synopsis?
"...angry white men pay taxes, they work hard, they're used to "picking up the tab", they can build an extension or drill an oil well, they watch football and go hunting, play poker and open doors for women. And yet despite all these attributes, no one takes any notice of them. Their wages are falling, thanks to illegal immigrants taking their jobs, or their jobs are going overseas. But they're not racist, he's quick to point out - they're "willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/25/angrywhitemen
Q2: Base readership. I as understand, Readership Base, is what "is." The existing numbers of those who already support a paper/blog/site. Drawing people in would expand beyond the "Readership Base."
Q3: The conjugation of "Base Readership" vs. "Readership Base." I smell essence of elitism. Be that what it is or my imagination, bears no significant value in defending or explaining personal choice or experiences. I ask simply, what influenced those written words.
With Presidential Adviser, Robert Reich's opinion focused like a laser beam on my... for the lack of better description; "world." I too am focused in this light. I ask for your thoughts as your stated values shade many of mine and will appreciate a point of view removed from mine. Feel free to PM me or post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
Before this thread gets out of hand, Let's take a minute to reflect on the clip, and exactly what is being said.
In my observation there is no doubt, if we are to take these two politicians at their word, they want any stimulus package to be directed mainly at minority groups, and jobs being created to be focused on those groups also.
First off, minority groups , in the eyes of these two mean Blacks, and Blacks only.
They are kidding no one.
What they fail to understand is, the work force the President envisions will require a reasonable amount of commitment , which for the most part, uneducated blacks do not possess.
How do these two politicians feel by giving all the opportunity to one race of people is going to create the panacea they are lookig for?
It just isn't going to happen.
Regardless of how a stimulus package is put together, there will never be harmony.
If it is mainly directed at poor and minority groups, the middle class will feel left out.
This business of putting minorities in "newly created jobs" is commendable but, what about all the others out there that need and want work?
Do their wants not deserve an equal opportunity as well?
It is kind of like bringing the hogs to the feeding troth.
Dump in the food, and let them have a go at it, regardless of the fighting and agression that a feeding frenxy will cause.
Same thing applies here regarding this stimulus package.
It must be dealt with on a basis of equality.
I am not talking about affermitive action here, just a fair policy of distrubution among all groups.
Why, or how would it be fair to single out one particular group in this stimulus package to be the major beneficary of the government handout?
Pitting one group against another will solve nothing, and in fact will cause chaos in the system.
The need for some stimulus plan that benefits this country MUST include all it's citizens.
So how is this accomplished?
The first articles that must be addressed are: How much money will be allocated in the stimulus?
How will the money be used?
Who gets the money?
Who decides how the money will be spent?
With liberal leadership at both ends of the spectrum, equality in this package is just about nill.
It is becomming a giant pork barell project, and it will create more problems than it solves.
I think it would be more progressive(and I don't mean liberal) if this package was re-defined in it's intentions.
We have already spent billions in bailouts that to date have done nothing to stimulate the failing economy.
Obama states he wants a stimulus package on his desk by mid February.
I say taking into consideration the deviseivness withing the halls of congress, this date is unacceptable.
The planning and distrubution of this package can not possible be accomplished in this short time span.
If this package is to succede, there has to be planning.
The needs of the individual states,as far as infrastructure are concerned, need to be studied.
What needs to be done?
How much manpower and resources will it take in each state too accomplish what needs to be done?
This can't be done in a little over two weeks.
What about other areas where this package must have an impact?
The bailout of a few months ago was suppossed to adress the issue of getting the banks back on track and open up the credit market.
That did not happen, and because of actions taken by the recepients of that bailout, it makes it all that more important that in any stimulus package, the "I's are dotted, and the "T's" are crossed.
Years ago, my college professor said something that stuck with me my entire life, and is something I use daily, and perhaps the congress would do well to heed.
Simply stated, "plan your work, and work your plan".
Enough said.
It will be most interesting to see what develops in the next three weeks.
Bob.
In my observation there is no doubt, if we are to take these two politicians at their word, they want any stimulus package to be directed mainly at minority groups, and jobs being created to be focused on those groups also.
First off, minority groups , in the eyes of these two mean Blacks, and Blacks only.
They are kidding no one.
What they fail to understand is, the work force the President envisions will require a reasonable amount of commitment , which for the most part, uneducated blacks do not possess.
How do these two politicians feel by giving all the opportunity to one race of people is going to create the panacea they are lookig for?
It just isn't going to happen.
Regardless of how a stimulus package is put together, there will never be harmony.
If it is mainly directed at poor and minority groups, the middle class will feel left out.
This business of putting minorities in "newly created jobs" is commendable but, what about all the others out there that need and want work?
Do their wants not deserve an equal opportunity as well?
It is kind of like bringing the hogs to the feeding troth.
Dump in the food, and let them have a go at it, regardless of the fighting and agression that a feeding frenxy will cause.
Same thing applies here regarding this stimulus package.
It must be dealt with on a basis of equality.
I am not talking about affermitive action here, just a fair policy of distrubution among all groups.
Why, or how would it be fair to single out one particular group in this stimulus package to be the major beneficary of the government handout?
Pitting one group against another will solve nothing, and in fact will cause chaos in the system.
The need for some stimulus plan that benefits this country MUST include all it's citizens.
So how is this accomplished?
The first articles that must be addressed are: How much money will be allocated in the stimulus?
How will the money be used?
Who gets the money?
Who decides how the money will be spent?
With liberal leadership at both ends of the spectrum, equality in this package is just about nill.
It is becomming a giant pork barell project, and it will create more problems than it solves.
I think it would be more progressive(and I don't mean liberal) if this package was re-defined in it's intentions.
We have already spent billions in bailouts that to date have done nothing to stimulate the failing economy.
Obama states he wants a stimulus package on his desk by mid February.
I say taking into consideration the deviseivness withing the halls of congress, this date is unacceptable.
The planning and distrubution of this package can not possible be accomplished in this short time span.
If this package is to succede, there has to be planning.
The needs of the individual states,as far as infrastructure are concerned, need to be studied.
What needs to be done?
How much manpower and resources will it take in each state too accomplish what needs to be done?
This can't be done in a little over two weeks.
What about other areas where this package must have an impact?
The bailout of a few months ago was suppossed to adress the issue of getting the banks back on track and open up the credit market.
That did not happen, and because of actions taken by the recepients of that bailout, it makes it all that more important that in any stimulus package, the "I's are dotted, and the "T's" are crossed.
Years ago, my college professor said something that stuck with me my entire life, and is something I use daily, and perhaps the congress would do well to heed.
Simply stated, "plan your work, and work your plan".
Enough said.
It will be most interesting to see what develops in the next three weeks.
Bob.
There's nothing deceitful about it.
Policy is being designed to create programs that don't go to WHITE MALE construction workers SPECIFICALLY. Not EVERY project will exclude them, on the basis of racism or sexism, but some are to. Do you think their going to propose some spending exclusively for WHITE MALE construction workers?
Rangel and Reich both made the racial and gender specific comment.
It's also reasonable to anticipate that "minority owned" companies will get preference on government sponsored construction projects as well.
No deceit here. You're trying to make a distinction, but upon reflection, it makes the reality more offensive.
You're conspicuously avoiding the topic now, Foxpaws.
I certainly doubt if you are 'Illiterate' by any stretch of the imagination mr monkey...
And so you know where I come from - my Dad was a construction worker as well - sheet metal, Local 9. Retired...
I was just trying to make a point with the headline - as stated - did not reflect what the article was about. The headline was written the way it was so that 'white construction workers' would feel like they were being removed from the job equation. When you read the article from World Net Daily (which was posted in another thread) or view the video, what seems to be the thrust of this is that at this hearing they were concerned with who was going to get the jobs that the stimulus package is going to create. They feel that the jobs should go to a cross section of americans - white, black, hispanic, men, women.
Probably a mislaid fear that the jobs will only go to white men. Sort of the opposite of the headline - both sides here are using knee jerk reactions in hopes to get their point across to the audience they want to reach. Cal, in this instance, used a headline that was made to anger a segment of the population that seems to be pretty prevalent on this part of this site. The political forums...
Lately there have been a lot of angry confrontation here - Scary Sh!t Here, and Screw George Bush were very recent threads that had to be locked because of the racial remarks in them.
It certainly appeared that Cal was going for a certain reaction when he posted that headline, especially since it was it wasn't what was really being stated in the article/video. Even he stated earlier that it wasn't about 'race'
If it wasn't about race - why use such a racial overtone headline?
But, as far as your questions..
Question 1 - I think you and Mr Elliott of the Guardian have described an angry white man to a tee. That is my Dad, and I bet you. At the end of the day - they just are proud that they have done a good job, treated everyone fairly, and want to go home to wife, kids, and a beer. They just want to be treated fairly. And with the inflammatory nature of this headline in this post, they are being targeted.
The video is from a man who is from a generation that saw a lot of discrimination. I think he is stating his own fears that the government money will be going to large construction firms that are mostly white owned and managed, and he is hoping that those companies will be hiring people of many ethnic backgrounds, as well as both genders.
Also, the video is from a 'right wing source'. I would like to see the uncut version.
Question 2 - Readership base - the majority of people who read this part of the forum - yep - that is what I meant.. so I don't know if I need to go into question 3 - but, it will probably finish answering this question.
Question 3 - not 'base' as in morally low; without estimable personal qualities; dishonorable; meanspirited; selfish; cowardly, but base as in the principal element or ingredient of anything. It seems like most of the posters in this part of the site are white men. I could be wrong - I haven't seen, nor do I know what has happened historically, but as of the last few months, it appears to be that way.
So, I hope the shading is OK now... Or, ask away - maybe I have just raised more questions than answered...
And, Cal, do you have the current policy for hiring for companies who have government contracts?
And so you know where I come from - my Dad was a construction worker as well - sheet metal, Local 9. Retired...
I was just trying to make a point with the headline - as stated - did not reflect what the article was about. The headline was written the way it was so that 'white construction workers' would feel like they were being removed from the job equation. When you read the article from World Net Daily (which was posted in another thread) or view the video, what seems to be the thrust of this is that at this hearing they were concerned with who was going to get the jobs that the stimulus package is going to create. They feel that the jobs should go to a cross section of americans - white, black, hispanic, men, women.
Probably a mislaid fear that the jobs will only go to white men. Sort of the opposite of the headline - both sides here are using knee jerk reactions in hopes to get their point across to the audience they want to reach. Cal, in this instance, used a headline that was made to anger a segment of the population that seems to be pretty prevalent on this part of this site. The political forums...
Lately there have been a lot of angry confrontation here - Scary Sh!t Here, and Screw George Bush were very recent threads that had to be locked because of the racial remarks in them.
It certainly appeared that Cal was going for a certain reaction when he posted that headline, especially since it was it wasn't what was really being stated in the article/video. Even he stated earlier that it wasn't about 'race'
If it wasn't about race - why use such a racial overtone headline?
But, as far as your questions..
Question 1 - I think you and Mr Elliott of the Guardian have described an angry white man to a tee. That is my Dad, and I bet you. At the end of the day - they just are proud that they have done a good job, treated everyone fairly, and want to go home to wife, kids, and a beer. They just want to be treated fairly. And with the inflammatory nature of this headline in this post, they are being targeted.
The video is from a man who is from a generation that saw a lot of discrimination. I think he is stating his own fears that the government money will be going to large construction firms that are mostly white owned and managed, and he is hoping that those companies will be hiring people of many ethnic backgrounds, as well as both genders.
Also, the video is from a 'right wing source'. I would like to see the uncut version.
Question 2 - Readership base - the majority of people who read this part of the forum - yep - that is what I meant.. so I don't know if I need to go into question 3 - but, it will probably finish answering this question.
Question 3 - not 'base' as in morally low; without estimable personal qualities; dishonorable; meanspirited; selfish; cowardly, but base as in the principal element or ingredient of anything. It seems like most of the posters in this part of the site are white men. I could be wrong - I haven't seen, nor do I know what has happened historically, but as of the last few months, it appears to be that way.
So, I hope the shading is OK now... Or, ask away - maybe I have just raised more questions than answered...
And, Cal, do you have the current policy for hiring for companies who have government contracts?
torquemonkey
Dedicated LVC Member
Well put. Thank you for answering completely and simply.
ground_zero298
Dedicated LVC Member
I am a white costruction worker also. I take it as them saying that we should try to get other people working the costruction trades along with the experienced white people. I am a bricklayer and our company hires who ever can perform their job and make count (bricklayers) Our majority make up is white, second is hispanic (laborers) and these guys are awesome. 3rd is the blacks. As far as numbers go 80 people on payroll, 2 women, 3 black guys, 10 hispanics, and 65 white guys with 10 of them from other countries(austalia, germany, poland, canada). We have a rare company where our boss only see's green. No one has ever been let go because of color, only work performance. Forcing untrained people to enter the construction force would be a blow to everyone who does it for a living because of the extra cost, quality of work and saftey issues. We don't see any women bricklayers for the simple reason what we lay is to heavy for the average woman to handle. Yes their are exeptions I have worked with them. But why should I have to work harded and faster because someone is forcing people into my trade without the proper training? Plus the construction trade is failing in MI right now because of the economy and the union has priced us to high to be competetive with the scabs.
torquemonkey
Dedicated LVC Member
I like where you are going with this. I want to continue you and your thoughts. Being from Ohio, I have many of the same values.
torquemonkey
Dedicated LVC Member
I am a white costruction worker also. I take it as them saying that we should try to get other people working the costruction trades along with the experienced white people.
I agree, I learned from white guys too. Buckeyes, New Jersey Devils, Arizona Sun Devils, New Yorkers, Germans, Croats and some Navajo’s, Hopi’s too.
I am a bricklayer and our company hires who ever can perform their job and make count (bricklayers) Our majority make up is white, second is hispanic (laborers) and these guys are awesome. 3rd is the blacks. As far as numbers go 80 people on payroll, 2 women, 3 black guys, 10 hispanics, and 65 white guys with 10 of them from other countries(austalia, germany, poland, canada). We have a rare company where our boss only see's green. No one has ever been let go because of color, only work performance.
Here in Az, I have worked for “Green” owners too. The almighty dollar and performance being the hiring and staffing criteria. Much like my Lincolns.
Forcing untrained people to enter the construction force would be a blow to everyone who does it for a living because of the extra cost, quality of work and saftey issues.
I see where you are going on this one. Those that may be rounded up, to fill quotas, will have tasks and be paid accordingly. Those that tough it out and earn respect will stay. I have experienced this in working with fellas from “half-way” houses. They have to work, it’s in their agreement to live there. They are onsite out of obligation to be out of jail. Not to work in the trade.
We don't see any women bricklayers for the simple reason what we lay is to heavy for the average woman to handle. Yes their are exeptions I have worked with them.
I stand with you. The field is a difficult environment to work in. It takes a tough mind and body to do it. Not all men can hack the labor, either. It is a special breed that builds and maintains the infrastructure of this country. Because it sure ain’t the pay! lol…
But why should I have to work harded and faster because someone is forcing people into my trade without the proper training?
My concern is safety on the job, during the job and after the job. The finish product and how long it will last until it needs R&R’ed. I have thought about it long and hard. I can’t find twenty percent of where I live, that is acceptable to have questionable work done.
Plus the construction trade is failing in MI right now because of the economy and the union has priced us to high to be competetive with the scabs.
Trust me on this one, it isn’t all rosy, or the grass greener for anyone at this point.
I know that training is listed and that not many owners would risk putting rookies out in the line. However, this is a political thing and window dressing goes along with politics, as well as nusiance B.S., think; "the emperor’s new clothes." I will gladly work as an offsite instructor to ensure safety and proper building standards be learned and valued. However, onsite I saw loss of production and quality having been sand bagged with large crews of those OJT, boys.
The overall work will get done and I understand not all folks get along. Been there done that. Ripped a few shirts along the way. That being said, I see this is as an overall, "help the folks who don't want to help themselves maneuver." I choose to look past the whole pandering for votes B.S. I hope that the over all intent is truly to allow people to choose into the business. I pray that the current administration is respectful to the Trades and what a person can create learned skill sets and earned confidence. What a quagmire this can quickly turn into. If there was a time to find this country weak...
1- what was said has nothing to do with making sure that employers are hiring a diversified work force. More importantly, the federal government shouldn't be forcing anyone to hire anyone else based on race. Policies that provide incentive to hire one race over another are providing incentive to practice mandated racism.
2- the use of race in the discussion by Rangel and Reich is telling on many levels. It does demonstrate an institutionalized kind of racism towards white males.
3- just as importantly, it demonstrates that the goal of the so-called "stimulus" plan IS NOT to stimulate, but to advance a social agenda under the guise of a stimulus plan. Training minority women job skills doesn't stimulate the economy. An economic stimulus is color blind. Building and construction is not need or deserve a racial designation, but these partisan hacks, who are operating under the radar of the public, without any scrutiny of the press, are making such a distinction.
Do you know why home constructions are considered such a stimulus?
Because they hire contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, roofers, metal workers, they buy supplies, appliances, furniture, and other home goods. Landscapers, gardeners, pavers, and window makers. Carpet installers, cabinet makers and A/V guys. And even lawyers and bankers.
That's in a nutshell. And in terms of taxes, each transaction is taxes, each income is taxes, the property is reassessed and taxed,
Even infrastructure improvements like roads have value. They employ architects, engineers, contractors, skilled labor, unskilled labor, and they purchases vast quantities of resources and machinery to do the work. And at the end of the project, goods are moved more efficiently, areas are opened up for travel, new communities can grow in these newly accessed (or more easily accessed) areas.... there's long term growth and value. Unlike another damn pork museum in the middle of nowhere.
2- the use of race in the discussion by Rangel and Reich is telling on many levels. It does demonstrate an institutionalized kind of racism towards white males.
3- just as importantly, it demonstrates that the goal of the so-called "stimulus" plan IS NOT to stimulate, but to advance a social agenda under the guise of a stimulus plan. Training minority women job skills doesn't stimulate the economy. An economic stimulus is color blind. Building and construction is not need or deserve a racial designation, but these partisan hacks, who are operating under the radar of the public, without any scrutiny of the press, are making such a distinction.
Do you know why home constructions are considered such a stimulus?
Because they hire contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, roofers, metal workers, they buy supplies, appliances, furniture, and other home goods. Landscapers, gardeners, pavers, and window makers. Carpet installers, cabinet makers and A/V guys. And even lawyers and bankers.
That's in a nutshell. And in terms of taxes, each transaction is taxes, each income is taxes, the property is reassessed and taxed,
Even infrastructure improvements like roads have value. They employ architects, engineers, contractors, skilled labor, unskilled labor, and they purchases vast quantities of resources and machinery to do the work. And at the end of the project, goods are moved more efficiently, areas are opened up for travel, new communities can grow in these newly accessed (or more easily accessed) areas.... there's long term growth and value. Unlike another damn pork museum in the middle of nowhere.
torquemonkey
Dedicated LVC Member
I agree. Part and parcel to the prupose of a Federal Gov't is to ensure the states work together. So a state may find itself importing a minority to meet some new FED. guidleine? Weird...
I agree. What to do? Crying and pissing about it not an option.
I agree. Social agenda... purchasing votes. Feel good about doing something... not neccessarily the right thing.
I agree. However, a spike in work flow does not, cannot sustain the income and tax base for any length of time beyond the spike itself. A whole lot of kicking up dust for what?
So far we are in agreement. The stimulus package on the table is a short term band aid, vote begging, self aggrandizing scheme.
Last edited by a moderator:
ground_zero298
Dedicated LVC Member
I know where I live new homes are not stimulating anything. 4 pages of forclosures everyday in my news paper. New houses are built by the same cheap half ass contractors. The hire out for nobody, they hack the house together with their own people. They use the cheapest materials they can find, nothing in the house is sqaure. The economy has driven quality into the ground. All company's no matter what the workload will keep it in house unless time constraints becaome a issue. You got to face the fact we have to many people and kids runing around and their not enough jobs. Their will never be enough jobs.
If I'm understanding what you said, you've jumped to a conclusion that isn't supported by logic. Overpopulation is not a problem, nor is it the cause of any problems.
The fact that there are four pages of foreclosures would mean that there are an abundance of existing houses currently available for sale. That means that new construction is going to be severely limited if not completely stopped. If not, you'll have an even greater abundance of supply further driving prices down.
So, because of that, you would be right- new home construction isn't stimulating anything. But that's because there isn't much new construction taking place, not because of the craftsmanship.
And new commercial construction has come to an abrupt halt. In New York City- damn near EVERYTHING has lost bank funding or just put on hold indefinitely.
But my point still stands, home construction is a huge stimulus because it does employ so many different people, with so many different trades. Federal funding of new houses isn't the answer, I was just giving an example of how and why new home figures are often so telling when it comes to forecasting the economic outlook.
alexfranke
Active LVC Member
(thought I got in on this one a couple days ago, but I guess I forgot to hit "submit"!)
I agree with foxpaws on this one, too. To me, the title is clearly not aligned with the message in the video. In the video, to me, they're saying, "Let's create as many jobs across the board as we can -- not in any one industry or group, but to a representative slice of the Americans that need work." The title (and your comment above) makes it sound as if they specifically intend to leave all white male construction workers out of the deal.
In my opinion, "white male construction workers" is used here as an example. E.g. If a popular plan on the table were to stimulate the economy by mining widgets in Coldfoot, Alaska, and the only people able to effectively mine them were diminutive red-headed lefties, then the quote may very well have gone something like, "I am concerned. . . .that these jobs not simply go to. . . .short left-handed miners. . . .Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others [as well]." (I added the "as well" because that's what it sounded like he was trying to say.)
How do they do it? I don't know. Will the criteria be fair? No idea -- I might very well have big problems with what they come up with. But it certainly doesn't sound like they're specifically out to shaft white male construction workers, which is what the title implies... That's my US$0.02.
I agree with foxpaws on this one, too. To me, the title is clearly not aligned with the message in the video. In the video, to me, they're saying, "Let's create as many jobs across the board as we can -- not in any one industry or group, but to a representative slice of the Americans that need work." The title (and your comment above) makes it sound as if they specifically intend to leave all white male construction workers out of the deal.
In my opinion, "white male construction workers" is used here as an example. E.g. If a popular plan on the table were to stimulate the economy by mining widgets in Coldfoot, Alaska, and the only people able to effectively mine them were diminutive red-headed lefties, then the quote may very well have gone something like, "I am concerned. . . .that these jobs not simply go to. . . .short left-handed miners. . . .Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others [as well]." (I added the "as well" because that's what it sounded like he was trying to say.)
How do they do it? I don't know. Will the criteria be fair? No idea -- I might very well have big problems with what they come up with. But it certainly doesn't sound like they're specifically out to shaft white male construction workers, which is what the title implies... That's my US$0.02.
ground_zero298
Dedicated LVC Member
I see you point Calabrio.
