Backed By Law


Where might we be now if these plans had been enforced for more than just a few years?

Since entry is mainly through apprenticeship and the industry trains apprentices—how can women be “UNQUALIFIED???

What could today’s contractors teach those contractors who in 1977, claimed they could not ensure and maintain a safe and fair work environment for women?

Wouldn’t outreach, recruitment and training be the way to meet the goals???
And don’t goals encourage those efforts to be carried out effectively?


I love these drawings !

1970 WOMEN
    37% Workforce
    1.2% Construction Jobs
2016 WOMEN
    46.2% Workforce
    3.0% Construction Jobs

What’s the best way to change the “longstanding reputation of the trades for excluding women?

How were cities like Seattle and Madison, and the State of California able to take an early lead in opening careers to women?


Was this ever enforced?

Imagine the impact not only on women’s workforce numbers, but the wider range of training experiences!


They anticipated checker-boarding!—and dis-allowed it!

What if they’d also monitored women’s % of wages (not just hours)? Could that have prevented the “revolving door”—women working as apprentices, but not journey-level?

Good idea, but . . .

from what I remember and heard, most people hired for these EEO positions were just collecting a paycheck!

40 years later . . .

What skills are needed in today’s construction industry?

Did this committee ever meet?
Couldn’t this committee idea be implemented locally?

If Reagan had not won the 1980 election . . . and if—as intended—these goals increased each year to keep women graduating apprenticeships employed at journey level, when would women have reached 10% of the workforce? 15%? 20%? 25%? . . .