offending?
 

...

Re: offending?
 

I'm definitely not kidding when I say it's not. It's something very standard to ask. A lot of clients meet certain minority or women quotas and will need to find out if you are before they give you business.

-Rudey

I think its kind of an off question to be asking...Maybe not so much as offending, but just odd.
But then again, if you explain that a larger account or wahtever is asking, they might not get as offended??

No, it's not. It's really a standard question.

Listen this isn't something where different people feel differently about. This is the business world.

-Rudey

Odd, definitely. Offensive, probably.

Necessary, unfortunately yes.

At the (state-owned) hospital where I work, we are under orders to make every attempt to only do business with "Historically Underutilized Businesses". That means, only do business with companies owned by women or racial minorities.

That has given rise to some very awkward phone calls. After a while, the State has decided to compile a list of these "HUBs" to avoid the phone call scenario.

I'm not even going to get into the discussion about whether this policy is a good idea or not -- although I don't doubt that someone will start it. :rolleyes:

But it's a fact of life these days.

--add

It's not something I would want to do, but Rudey's right, it is fairly common.

For example... my office supply catalog puts special symbols next to vendors who are minority owned or woman-owned. They had to find out somehow....

I'm glad you found it offensive to you. The businesses that use it and need it and are underpriviledged do not.

In fact people do it when applying to college as well.

Affirmative Action started in labor before it moved into the education arena.

-Rudey

See, I didn't realize or know that. I'm an education major.. I wasn't aware that questions like that were standard practice in the business world..?

Yeah it is...in fact I'll pull up some stuff for you.

Here is a list by the government: http://www.census.gov/csd/mwb/

Here is the State of Texas soliciting offers from Minority owned businesses:
http://www.state.tx.us/category.jsp?...ategoryId=2.13

There is nothing harmful or offensive in the slightest bit. This is very standard and there is no reason to be surprised.

-Rudey
-- :)

Re: offending?
 

The large corporate account may be REQUIRED by law to know. I don't know what kind of work you do, but if this corporate account has any kind of obligations such as federal loans or a federal contract, they are required to submit affirmative action programs and comply with affirmative action guidelines. This also applies to their subcontractors and on down the line.

Re: offending?
 

Not at all odd or offensive. :) With my company, they need a certain amount of minority or woman-owned businesses for subconsultants in order to work on a project. While preparing a proposal for a project, I have to include a special government form on the subconsultant. There's a space on the form for the subconsultant to state if they are a minority or woman-owned business.

Hey thanks! I checked those sites out.. very interesting. You learn something new every day, don't ya? Anything about Education or History you want to know Rudey? I can tell you all you never needed to know about a great program called National History Day.. ;) hahahhaa :p :D

-Ann Marie

Everyone has already answered that it is common in Corporate America to ask/answer this question. I just wanted to add that this is also very common for Federal contracts. There are some Federal Agencies that will not award a contract to a non-minority owned business.

It's also very common in Architecture and construction. In fact, in my area, most of the HUBs involved in Architecture have created and published their own lists, because they were asked so often. Since there are so few architecture firms headed by women or ethnic minorities, they stay very busy.

It's just today's reality.

Editorial comment on somewhat related topic
 

OUR VIEW

Mayors' kin hijack opportunity

Published on: 04/02/2004 Atlanta Journal Constitution
Do political family connections play a role in awarding airport contracts?


The two firms fighting over a bigger slice of the concessionaire's pie at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport share a troubling bond: Both are run by children of Atlanta mayors.

One firm, owned by Mayor Shirley Franklin's ex-husband, employs her son Cabral as vice president and her daughter Kali as a human resources specialist. The other firm is co-owned by Brooke Jackson Edmond, daughter of the late Maynard Jackson, a former mayor. Each firm already operates retail outlets at the airport.

Now they're pitted against one another as minority partners of two major companies competing to run a duty-free shop for international travelers at Hartsfield-Jackson airport. An evaluation panel unanimously chose the business connected to Edmond's firm.

However, airport General Manager Ben DeCosta overruled the decision, marking the first time he's ever discarded the advice of an evaluation panel in nearly six years on the job. Instead, he picked the bid that includes the Franklin clan, citing concerns about a major lawsuit, since settled, against Edmond's majority partner. "I have to make sure we are doing business with people who are really solid," he says. His ruling was appealed and a hearing is under way this week.

DeCosta says the mayor played no role in his decision. "The mayor will not talk to me about anything involving her family." Franklin has always said that she will never participate in any city business deals that could involve her family, and there's no indication she's ever violated that pledge.

But that airport officials had only two bids to choose between -- and that both involve family members with close ties to the Atlanta political establishment -- is distressing. The airport has long served as a job bank for well-connected black Atlantans, just as state government has provided employment for the relatives of many white lawmakers over the years. Indeed, an executive of one of the largest duty-free operators, who chose not to bid, noted in an interview last year that some companies may have stayed away because Atlanta has "a history of being political."

But the appearance that bids are open only to the well-connected is not the only problem here. The other is that the Franklins and Jacksons should have already graduated from a program designed for disadvantaged minority businesses. The powerful and successful families are no longer fighting to get their foot in the door at the airport. They kicked it down a long time ago.

Now, they ought to get out of the way and stop blocking truly disadvantaged business owners from a shot at big contracts.