CHAPTER 4
OCCUPATIONS

AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND JOBS

Few noticeable changes have occurred in the occupational situations of African-Americans since the 1990s. In 2002 African-Americans accounted for 10.9 percent of the civilian labor force age sixteen and over. Of the entire employed population of African Americans, 22.7 percent held managerial and professional positions, compared to 31.9 percent of employed white Americans. Only 26.3 percent of all employed African-American women and 18.6 percent of African-American men were managers and professionals, compared to 34.8 percent of employed white women and 29.5 percent of white men. (See Table 4.1.)

African-Americans are nearly twice as likely to work in service occupations. In 2002 some 22.7 percent of African-Americans worked in service occupations, compared to 12.8 percent of white Americans. (See Table 4.1.) Any growth in professional employment has generally occurred in fields at the lower end of the earnings scale—particularly among social and recreational workers, engineering and science technicians, vocational and educational counselors, practical nurses, and health technologists. These were the same jobs held by large numbers of African-American workers in the early 1990s.

In 2002 the largest percentage of African-American workers (28.2 percent) worked in the field of technical, sales, and administrative support, followed by managers and professionals, and the service occupations category, both with 22.7 percent. Approximately 17.9 percent of this demographic were operators, fabricators, and laborers—primarily lower-wage occupations. Only 7.3 percent worked in precision production, craft, and repair—generally higher-wage technical occupations. (See Table 4.1.)

In 2002, in professional and managerial jobs, African-Americans made up 13 percent of officials and administrators in public administration. African-Americans comprised 14.4 percent of inspectors and compliance officers, except in construction. (See Table 4.2.) In professional specialty jobs, African-Americans made up 18.7 percent of dietitians and 16.9 percent of educational and vocational counselors.

In occupations involving technical, sales, and administrative support, African-Americans made up 20.6 percent of licensed practical nurses, and 19.4 percent of clinical laboratory technologists and technicians. African-Americans working in personal service occupations made up 29 percent of barbers and 20.7 percent of welfare service aides. In private household service occupations, African-Americans made up 13.6 percent of cleaners and servants. (See Table 4.2.)

Only 5 percent of all physicians, 7.3 percent of all mathematical and computer scientists, 4.5 percent of engineers, and 4.6 percent of lawyers were African-American. About 6.2 percent of economists, 5.4 percent of college/university professors, and 5.1 percent of technical writers were African-American. (See Table 4.2.)

HISPANIC AMERICANS AND JOBS

Significant occupational differences exist among Hispanic subgroups. Overall, Hispanics are less likely than African-Americans to hold professional and technical positions. In 2002 Hispanics held 5.8 percent of managerial and professional jobs, compared to African-Americans, who held 8 percent of such jobs. (See Table 4.2.) A sizable proportion of Cuban Americans, however, hold such jobs. Like African-Americans, Hispanics, with the exception of the Cuban Americans who came to this country following the Cuban Revolution, are concentrated primarily in low-paying, low-skill jobs.

In 2002 Hispanics represented 12.2 percent of the total civilian labor force age sixteen and over—for the

first time surpassing African-Americans (10.9 percent). (See Table 4.2.) A year earlier African-Americans held an edge with 11.3 percent, compared to 10.9 percent for the Hispanic demographic. Hispanics made up 40.7 percent of the nation's cleaners and servants in private households. They also comprised 19.8 percent of the food preparation and service industry. Hispanics were also likely to work in construction jobs. Hispanics made up 15.2 percent of plumbers, pipe fitters, and steamfitters, and 37.8 percent of concrete and terrazzo finishers. Many Hispanics also served as operators, fabricators, and laborers. Hispanics made up 41.9 percent of textile sewing machine operators and 42 percent of pressing machine operators.

When it comes to job outlook, Cuban-origin Hispanics have traditionally done better in securing higher-paying jobs. In 2002, 27.5 percent of Cuban Americans in the workforce held professional or managerial positions. In contrast, 20.3 percent of Puerto Ricans in the workforce held professional or managerial positions. Among Mexican Americans, only 12 percent of workers held professional or managerial positions. Mexican Americans were most likely to work as operators, fabricators, and laborers, with 22.9 percent of them holding such positions. Puerto Ricans and Cubans were more likely to work in technical, sales, and administrative support jobs. (See Table 4.3.)

ASIAN-AMERICANS AND JOBS

The higher educational attainment of many Asian-Americans has resulted in a greater proportion working in higher-paying jobs than other minority groups. In March 2000, 17.4 percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) were in executive, administrative, and managerial positions. An additional 21.9 percent were in other professional occupations. In comparison, 16.4 percent of non-Hispanic whites were in executive, administrative, and managerial positions. Approximately 16.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites were in other professional jobs. (See Table 4.4.)

On the other end of the spectrum, only 6.7 percent of APIs worked as machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors in 2000. Less than 1 percent of APIs were likely to work as service workers in private households, and only 2.8 percent of workers were handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers. (See Table 4.4.)

NATIVE AMERICANS/ALASKA NATIVES AND JOBS

In 2001 the proportion of Native Americans and Alaska Natives serving as officials and managers was low, comprising only 0.4 percent of the overall population of workers in these fields. Approximately 11.1 percent of employed Native Americans and Alaska Natives were professionals. Native Americans and Alaska Natives were more likely to be employed as operatives, sales workers, office and clerical workers, and service workers. (See Table 4.5.)

MINORITIES AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT

At the Top Levels

Traditionally, white males have held most of the higher-level positions in the federal government. Along with cabinet members, who are selected by the president, these high-level officials wield the power in federal government. This holds true for many agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Customs Service.

A major contributor to this situation is time. It takes about twenty years to rise to the top of any organization. In the early 1980s few women, African-Americans, or Hispanics held any management positions in the federal government. Another possible factor is partiality. Some lower-level government employees believe that they have been deprived of promotions because of their gender or race and have filed bias complaints.

On May 17, 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidelines to facilitate the settlement of federal-sector discrimination complaints, including claims brought under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, and national origin. Under the administration of Chairperson Ida L. Castro, the EEOC sought to reform its complaint process for federal employees. The new directive authorizes federal agencies to enter into settlement of bias claims, including monetary payment.

Law Enforcement

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2002 (Washington, DC, 2003), minorities made up 32.4 percent of all federal law enforcement officers in 2002. The breakdown is as follows: Hispanics (16.8 percent), non-Hispanic African-Americans (11.7 percent), Asians and Pacific Islanders (2.5 percent), Native Americans (1.2 percent). (See Figure 4.1.)

Gains have been made since 1996 when it comes to the number of minorities working in law enforcement agencies—minorities made up 28 percent of federal officers in 1996 as opposed to 32.4 percent in 2002. Hispanic federal officers saw the biggest leap, going from 13.1 percent in 1996 to 16.8 percent of federal

officers in 2002. Among African-Americans, the proportion rose from 11.3 percent in 1996 to 11.7 percent in 2002. The law enforcement agencies with the greatest increases in minority representation included the Customs Service (from 28.9 to 36.4 percent), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (41.3 to 46.7 percent), and the Bureau of Prisons (from 35.6 to 40 percent). (See Figure 4.2.)

MINORITIES IN BUSINESS

African-American-Owned Businesses

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African-American businesses represented 4 percent of nonagricultural businesses in the United States in 1997. The 1997 Survey of Minority-Owned Business Enterprises (Washington, DC, 2001), reported revenues from African-American-owned businesses reached $71.2 billion. While the Census Bureau has tracked these numbers for years, changes to the surveys prevent the comparison of results from previous years. Service firms accounted for the greatest proportion of gross receipts among African-American businesses ($25.9 billion), followed by retail businesses ($13.8 billion), and construction firms ($7.7 billion). (See Table 4.6.)

Of the largest industry groups, service-industry firms comprised 53 percent of all African-American-owned firms. Within that same group, business services and personal services represented 48 percent of the firms. Retail trade accounted for 11 percent of all African-American-owned businesses, followed by transportation, communications, and utilities, with 9 percent, and construction, with 7 percent. (See Figure 4.3.)

The largest number of African-American-owned businesses were located in New York (86,469), with gross revenues totaling nearly $5.1 billion. Some 79,110 African-American-owned firms earned $6.4 billion in California, while 60,427 such firms operated in Texas, earning nearly $6.9 billion. Table 4.7 compares ten cities with the largest number of African-American-owned firms with the overall numbers and revenues of African-American-owned firms in the state. Figure 4.4 reveals the average receipts for African-American-owned businesses in 1997.

Hispanic-Owned Businesses

In 1997 some 1.2 million nonagricultural businesses in the United States were owned by Hispanics, making up 5.8 percent of such businesses. Receipts for Hispanic-owned businesses reached $186.3 billion.

In 1997 wholesale trade businesses accounted for $40.4 billion in receipts, or 21.7 percent of receipts from Hispanic-owned businesses. Service businesses generated $39.2 billion in receipts, and retail trade businesses reached $32.3 billion in receipts. Manufacturing jobs brought in $28.7 billion. (See Table 4.8.)

While wholesale trade businesses proved to be the most lucrative for Hispanics, they were not the most plentiful Hispanic-owned businesses. Service businesses made up 42 percent of Hispanic-owned firms, followed by retail trade, other non-classified industries, and construction at 13 percent each. Wholesale trade businesses made up only 3 percent of Hispanic-owned firms in 1997. (See Figure 4.5.)

The state with the most Hispanic firms was California, with 336,405 businesses and the highest receipts (nearly $52 billion) of all the states. Other states with large numbers of Hispanic-owned businesses included Texas (240,396 firms) with receipts of $39.5 billion, and Florida (193,902 firms) with receipts of $35.4 billion. Table 4.9 compares the ten cities with the largest number of Hispanic-owned firms with the overall numbers and revenues for Hispanic-owned firms in the state. Figure 4.6 shows the average receipts for Hispanic-owned businesses in 1997.

Asian-American Businesses

The number of nonagricultural businesses owned by Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) was 912,960 in 1997. Receipts totaled $306.9 billion. Wholesale trade businesses brought in the most revenue, at $105.5 billion. Retail trade businesses made $67.9 billion, followed by service businesses with $67.8 billion. (See Table 4.10.)

Service businesses made up the bulk of API-owned firms at 44 percent. Retail trade businesses were next with 21 percent, followed by non-classified industries at 10 percent and by finance, insurance, and real estate businesses at 8 percent. (See Figure 4.7.)

The state with the largest number of API-owned businesses was California with 316,048. Following were New York with 123,258 and Texas with 60,226 API-owned firms. Table 4.11 compares ten cities with the largest number of API-owned firms with the overall numbers and revenues for API-owned firms in the state. Figure 4.8 shows the average receipts per firm by industry for API-owned firms in 1997.

Native American and Alaska Native Businesses

Native Americans and Alaska Natives owned some 197,300 nonagricultural firms in the United States in 1997. Their businesses brought in $34.3 billion in receipts.

The construction industry was the most lucrative, bringing in $5.4 billion in receipts. Service businesses brought in $5.2 billion in receipts in 1997, while retail trade businesses made $4.6 billion in receipts that year. (See Table 4.12.)

The group of non-classified industries accounted for the largest percentage of most Native American and Alaska Native businesses, followed by the service industry with 17 percent. The third largest field was construction,

which accounted for 14 percent of Native American- and Alaska Native-owned businesses. (See Figure 4.9.)

The states with the most Native American- and Alaska Native-owned businesses were California, with 26,603; Texas, with 15,668; and Oklahoma, with 15,066. Table 4.13 compares five cities with the largest number of Native American- and Alaska Native-owned firms with the overall numbers and revenues for Native American- and Alaska Native-owned firms in the state. Figure 4.10 shows the average receipts per firm by industry for Native American and Alaska Native-owned firms in 1997.

Women-Owned Businesses

According to the Census Bureau, women-owned businesses accounted for 26 percent of nonagricultural firms in 1997. Approximately 72 percent of women-owned firms were in the service or retail trade industries.

The number of minority women starting businesses was growing faster than the number of white women starting businesses, according to the Center for Women's Business Research. The center reported that the number of minority-women-owned companies grew 31.5 percent between 1997 and 2002. The number of all women-owned companies grew only 14.3 percent between those same years.

In 2002 the center found there were 1.2 million businesses owned by women who belonged to a racial or ethnic minority group. Those businesses generated an estimated $100.6 billion in sales. Hispanic women-owned businesses accounted for 39 percent of minority-women-owned firms in 2002. Nearly a third of businesses (30 percent) owned by women of a racial or ethnic minority group in 2002 were owned by African-American women, according to the center. Approximately 30 percent of businesses owned by minority women were API-owned businesses. Only 6 percent of minority-women-owned firms were owned by Native American or Alaska Native women.

Minority "Set-Asides"

Many levels of government, including the federal government, have "set-aside" programs that award a certain percentage of contracts to minority- and women-owned businesses. In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court, in

City of Richmond v. Croson Co. (488 US 469), struck down a Richmond, Virginia, city ordinance that reserved 30 percent of city-financed construction contracts for minority-owned businesses. The Court ruled that the ordinance violated equal protection because there was no "specific" and "identified" evidence of past discrimination, "public or private," against the Richmond Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) in city contracting. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, also noted that the city had failed to "narrowly tailor" the remedy to accomplish any objective other than "out-right racial balancing." The opinion further stated that it was a "completely unrealistic" assumption that a 30 percent assignment to MBEs in a particular trade would be a fair representation of the community.

Minority leaders and others nationwide attacked this decision as a dramatic setback for minority businesses. Only in recent years had they been able to take advantage of lucrative government contracts through "set-aside" programs. These programs developed because the cost of doing business with government agencies can be too expensive for small organizations with limited funds. Governments, especially the federal government, are often slow to pay their bills, so businesses frequently have to borrow money to bridge the gap between the delivery of goods and services that must be paid for and the time it takes the government to pay.

Acquiring government contracts can be very involved and confusing for businesses unfamiliar with the process.

In addition, minority businesses are often newer and smaller and have difficulty competing with older, larger businesses that know the process and can afford to make lower bids. Since the federal Government Services Administration (GSA) must now be self-sufficient, it began charging government contractors 1 percent of their contract, which will be used to support the GSA. As a result, the government is much more likely to grant contracts to larger contractors with larger customer bases who will contribute more to support the GSA.

CONVERSELY …

In 1989 the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded a contract for a federal highway project to a construction firm, which in turn subcontracted the job to a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in compliance with the Subcontractor Compensation Clause. Adarand Constructors, a Colorado company whose owner was white, had submitted a low bid on part of the project, but did not get the project. Adarand subsequently sued the government, claiming the clause and the racial preference stemming from it violated the owner of Adarand's right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, (515 US 200), expressed doubt in the validity of the affirmative action programs, based on the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (PL 100-17) that channeled $10 billion per year in construction contracts to women- and minority-owned businesses. The court, citing the need for stricter and narrower standards in determining racial preferences when awarding contracts, remanded (returned) the case to the district court for review.

In June 1997 the district court found for Adarand, ordering the Transportation Department to stop implementing the clause. The Transportation Department appealed the ruling. In the meantime, Adarand filed a second suit to challenge Colorado's certification practice regarding Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. Shortly after, Colorado changed its certification guidelines to simply require that applicants certify that they were socially disadvantaged because of racial, ethnic, or gender bias. Adarand, on the district court's advice, applied for the disadvantaged business status and received it.

Learning of Adarand's new status, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the government case as moot and annulled the district court's ruling favoring Adarand. Adarand appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 12, 2000, the Supreme Court, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, (No. 99-295), reversed the appellate court's ruling, sending the case back for further proceedings. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Transportation Department, which had yet to approve Colorado's procedure for certifying Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, could not absolutely assure the Court that it would not revert back to its practice of racial preference.

The Tenth Circuit Court once again ruled against Adarand. In November 2001 the Supreme Court declined to review the case any further, ending the litigation.

NATIVE AMERICAN CASINOS—A MATTER OF SELF-RULE

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (PL 100-497, 1988) gives tribes "the exclusive right to regulate gaming on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by federal law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity." The law requires that only tribes, not individuals, run gaming operations. The tribes do not need state approval for Class 2 casinos, supposedly bingo halls, but which in many cases have slot machine parlors that skirt the law. (The electronic version of bingo is played by single individuals who "daub" their cards, as required by federal law, by pressing a play button marked "daub," and are instantly informed if the card is a winner.) Class 3 casinos offer slots, roulette, craps, and poker, but require state approval. Thus, governors strike deals with tribes, granting class 3 approval in exchange for a share of the profits going to the treasury. With many states facing severe budget problems, tribal gaming has become an attractive

source of revenue. Tribal gaming, as a result, has gained considerable political influence. What is less certain is how much tribal gaming has helped the Native American population as a whole.

In December 2002 Time magazine published a scathing and controversial review of tribal gaming. According to the article, when tribal gaming emerged in the late 1980s "in a frenzy of cost cutting and privatization, Washington perceived gaming on reservations as a cheap way to wean tribes from government handouts, encourage economic development and promote tribal self-sufficiency." But the 1988 Gaming Act, in the words of Time, "was so riddled with loopholes, so poorly written, so discriminatory and subject to such conflicting interpretations that fourteen years later, armies of high-priced lawyers are still debating the definition of a slot machine." Time maintained that only a handful of tribal gaming establishments, those operating close to major population centers, were successful, while the overwhelming majority were either too small or too remote in location: "Casinos in California, Connecticut and Florida—states with only 3 percent of the Indian population—haul in 44 percent of all revenue." According to Time, in 2002 "290 Indian casinos in twenty-eight states pulled in at least $12.7 billion in revenue." Of that sum, Time estimates, "the casinos kept more than $5 billion as profit. That would place overall Indian gaming among Fortune magazine's twenty most profitable U.S. corporations." But "just thirty-nine casinos generated $8.4 billion. In short, 13 percent of the casinos accounted for 66 percent of the take." In 2004 total revenues were projected to top $15 billion.

Also controversial was the authenticity of the tribes involved in gaming. One of the most successful of the Native American casinos is Foxwoods, located near North Stonington, Connecticut. It is run by the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, which was virtually eradicated by English settlers and rival tribes in 1637. By the early 1970s just two tribe members remained on a 200-acre reservation. When they died, or moved, Connecticut planned to turn the reservation into a state park. A grandson of one of the surviving tribal members, Richard Hayward, a welder, relocated a number of people with Pequot blood to the land in order to save the reservation and managed to launch a few small businesses. It was not until 1986 and the start of a high-stakes bingo parlor that the Pequot began to turn the corner. With the passage of the 1988 law, Hayward recognized an opportunity to build a major casino that was closer to the New York metropolitan area than Atlantic City. While Atlantic City casinos paid 8 percent of their revenues to New Jersey, and Nevada casinos paid 6.2 percent to the state, Hayward offered Connecticut 25 percent of Foxwood's annual slot machine take, which accounted for the lion's share of a casino's revenues. The Pequot could make such a generous offer because the tribal government was exempt from local realty and federal income taxes. By the mid-1990s the Pequot tribe numbered 450. To qualify, members at first had to prove that they were at least one-sixteenth Pequot, but these requirements were loosened so that people who could trace their lineage to a Pequot listed in a 1900 or 1910 census could become part of the Pequot tribe if the current tribal members voted to approve the application. The rewards of becoming a Pequot were substantial: housing assistance, free medical coverage, child and elder care, paid education through graduate school, a stake in the casino and other Pequot businesses, plus annual cash bonuses.

According to Time, leaders of tribes involved in gaming "are free to set their own whimsical rules for admission, without regard for Indian heritage. They may exclude rivals, potential whistle-blowers and other legitimate claimants. The fewer tribe members, the larger the cut for the rest. Some tribes are booting out members, while others are limiting membership." Moreover, many "long-defunct tribes and extended families" have attempted to gain Congressional certification in order to become involved in tribal gaming. In New York State some tribes that are not even recognized as New York tribes, including tribes from Oklahoma and Wisconsin, have teamed with area developers to buy land in the Catskills and elsewhere in the state in hopes of building casinos. They are opposed, however, by local communities—as well as the likes of Donald Trump—who fear further competition to casinos operating in Atlantic City.

Proponents of tribal gaming point to a number of success stories. The Oneidas of Wisconsin, for instance, took advantage of a bingo hall to lower the tribe's unemployment rate from 40 percent to 17 percent in the early 1990s and also used proceeds to build an elementary school and subsidize a Head Start program. The Suquamish in Washington State have used gambling profits to buy back former reservation land. While only a handful of tribal casinos generate large revenues, even those operations that break even create jobs that benefit many Native Americans. Tribes not able to take advantage of gambling can also benefit from revenue-sharing programs, such as the one set up in California, where sixty-one tribes with gaming compacts share profits with seventy-five qualifying tribes.

Much of the recent growth in tribal gaming, which is outpacing both Atlantic City and Las Vegas, is due to the expansion of facilities into full-fledged resorts. Wary that the future might see the curtailment in revenues, some tribes are looking to diversify by investing proceeds into non-gaming businesses, thereby establishing an economic base independent of gambling. To counter adverse publicity regarding tribal gaming, the National Indian Gaming Association, with 184 member tribes, has launched a public relations effort. It has also funded a study to be done by Harvard University to determine the effects of gaming on Native American communities, which will be the first comprehensive study of its kind.